Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (25)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal article (14)
- Doctoral Thesis (11)
Language
- English (25) (remove)
Keywords
- learning (25) (remove)
Institute
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.
Although questionable research practices (QRPs) and p-hacking have received attention in recent years, little research has focused on their prevalence and acceptance in students. Students are the researchers of the future and will represent the field in the future. Therefore, they should not be learning to use and accept QRPs, which would reduce their ability to produce and evaluate meaningful research. 207 psychology students and fresh graduates provided self-report data on the prevalence and predictors of QRPs. Attitudes towards QRPs, belief that significant results constitute better science or lead to better grades, motivation, and stress levels were predictors. Furthermore, we assessed perceived supervisor attitudes towards QRPs as an important predictive factor. The results were in line with estimates of QRP prevalence from academia. The best predictor of QRP use was students’ QRP attitudes. Perceived supervisor attitudes exerted both a direct and indirect effect via student attitudes. Motivation to write a good thesis was a protective factor, whereas stress had no effect. Students in this sample did not subscribe to beliefs that significant results were better for science or their grades. Such beliefs further did not impact QRP attitudes or use in this sample. Finally, students engaged in more QRPs pertaining to reporting and analysis than those pertaining to study design. We conclude that supervisors have an important function in shaping students’ attitudes towards QRPs and can improve their research practices by motivating them well. Furthermore, this research provides some impetus towards identifying predictors of QRP use in academia.
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.
Foraging behavior is a particularly fascinating topic within the studies of social insects. Decisions made by individuals have effects not only on the individual level, but on the colony level as well. Social information available through foraging in a group modulates individual preferences and shapes the foraging pattern of a colony. Identifying parameters influencing foraging behavior in leaf-cutting ants is especially intriguing because they do not harvest for themselves, but for their symbiotic fungus which in turn influences their plant preferences after the incorporation of the substrate. To learn about the substrates’ unsuitability for the fungus, ants need to be able to identify the incorporated substrate and associate it with detrimental effects on the fungus. Odor is an important plant characteristic known to be used as recognition key outside the nest in the context of foraging. Chapter 1 shows that foragers are able to recall information about the unsuitability of a substrate through odor alone and consequently reject the substrate, which leads to the conclusion that inside the nest, odor might be enough to indentify incorporated substrate. Identification of plant species is a key factor in the foraging success of leaf-cutting ants as they harvest a multitude of different plant species in a diverse environment and host plant availability and suitability changes throughout the year. Fixed plant preferences of individuals through innate tendencies are therefore only one factor influencing foraging decisions. On the individual as well as the colony level, foraging patterns are flexible and a result of an intricate interplay between the different members involved in the harvesting process: foragers, gardeners and the symbiotic fungus. In chapter 2 I identified several conditions necessary for naïve foragers to learn about the unsuitability of substrate inside the nest. In order to exchange of information about the unsuitability of a substrate, the plant in question must be present in the fungus garden. Foragers can learn without own foraging experience and even without experiencing the effects of the substrate on the fungus, solely through the presence of experienced gardeners. The presence of experienced foragers alone on the other hand is not enough to lower the acceptance of substrate by naïve foragers in the presence of naïve gardeners, even if experienced foragers make up the majority of the workforce inside the nest. Experienced foragers are also able to reverse their previous negative experience and start accepting the substrate again. The individual behavior of foragers and gardeners with different experiential backgrounds in the presence of suitable or unsuitable substrate inside the fungus chamber was investigated in chapter 3 to shed some light on possible mechanisms involved in the flow of information about substrate suitability from the fungus to the ants. Gardeners as well as foragers are involved in the leaf processing and treatment of the applied leaf patches on the fungus. If the plant material is unsuitable, significantly more ants treat the plant patches, but foragers are less active overall. Contacts between workers initiated by either gardeners or foragers occur significantly more frequent and last longer if the substrate is unsuitable. Even though experienced gardeners increase naïve foragers’ contact rates and duration with other workers in the presence of suitable plant patches, naïve foragers show no differences in the handling of the plant patches. This suggests that foragers gain information about plant suitability not only indirectly through the gardening workers, but might also be able to directly evaluate the effects of the substrate on the fungus themselves. Outside the nest, foragers influence each other the trail (chapter 4). Foraging in a group and the presence of social information is a decisive factor in the substrate choice of the individual and leads to a distinct and consentaneous colony response when encountering unfamiliar or unsuitable substrates. As leaf-cutting ants harvest different plant species simultaneously on several trails, foragers gain individual experiences concerning potential host plants. Preferences might vary among individuals of the same colony to the degree that foragers on the same trail perceive a certain substrate as either suitable or unsuitable. If the majority of foragers on the trail perceives one of the currently harvested substrates as unsuitable, naïve foragers lower their acceptance within 4 hours. In the absence of a cue in the fungus, naïve foragers harvesting by themselves still eventually (within 6 hours) reject the substrate as they encounter experienced gardeners during visits to the nest within foraging bouts. As foraging trails can be up to 100 m long and foragers spend a considerable amount of time away from the nest, learning indirectly from experienced foragers on the trail accelerates the distribution of information about substrate suitability. The level of rejection of a formerly unsuitable substrate after eight hours of foraging by naïve foragers correlates with the average percentage of unladen experienced foragers active on the trail. This suggests that unladen experienced foragers might actively contact laden naïve workers transmitting information about the unsuitability of the load they carry. Results from experiments were I observed individual laden foragers on their way back to the nest backed up this assumption as individuals were antennated and received bites into the leaf disk they carried. Individuals were contacted significantly more often by nestmates that perceived the carried leaf disk as unsuitable due to previous experience than by nestmates without this experience (chapter 6). Leaf-cutting ants constantly evaluate, learn and re-evaluate the suitability of harvested substrate and adjust their foraging activity accordingly. The importance of the different sources of information within the colony and their effect on the foraging pattern of the colony depend on the presence or absence of each of them as e.g. experienced foragers have a bigger influence on the plant preferences of naïve foragers in the absence of a cue in the fungus garden.
Ciliary neurotrophic factor (Cntf) acts as a differentiation and survival factor for different types of neurons and glial cells. It is expressed by peripheral Schwann cells and astrocytes in the central nervous system and mediates its effects via a receptor complex involving CntfRα, LifRß and gp130, leading to downstream activation of Stat3. Recent studies by our group have shown that Cntf modulates neuronal microtubule dynamics via Stat3/stathmin interaction. In a mouse model for motor neuron disease, i.e. pmn, Cntf is able to rescue axonal degeneration through Stat3/stathmin signaling. While these findings suggest a role of Cntf in controlling axonal functions in the neuromuscular system, additional data indicate that Cntf might also play a role in synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus. Electrophysiological recordings in hippocampal organotypic cultures and acute slices revealed a deficit in long-term potentiation (LTP) in Cntf -/- mice. This deficit was rescued by 24 h stimulation with Cntf, combined with an acute application of Cntf during LTP-measurements indicating that Cntf is both necessary and sufficient for hippocampal LTP, and possibly synaptic plasticity. Therefore, Cntf knockout mice were investigated to elucidate this possible role of Cntf in hippocampal LTP and synaptic plasticity.
First, we validated the presence of Cntf in the target tissue: in the hippocampus, Cntf was localized in Gfap-positive astrocytes surrounding small blood vessels in the fissure and in meningeal areas close to the dentate gyrus. Laser micro-dissection and qPCR analysis showed a similar distribution of Cntf-coding mRNA validating the obtained immunofluorescent results. Despite the strong LTP deficit in organotypic cultures, in vivo behavior of Cntf -/- mice regarding hippocampus-dependent learning and anxiety-related paradigms was largely inconspicuous. However, western blot analysis of hippocampal organotypic cultures revealed a significant reduction of pStat3 levels in Cntf -/- cultures under baseline conditions, which in turn were elevated upon Cntf stimulation. In order to resolve and examine synaptic structures we turned to in vitro analysis of cultured hippocampal neurons which indicated that pStat3 is predominantly located in the presynapse. In line with these findings, presynapses of Cntf -/- cultures were reduced in size and when in contact to astrocytes, contained less pStat3 immunoreactivity compared to presynapses in wildtype cultures.
In conclusion, our findings hypothesize that despite of a largely inconspicuous behavioral phenotype of Cntf -/- mice, Cntf appears to have an influence on pStat3 levels at hippocampal synapses. In a next step these two key questions need to be addressed experimentally: 1) is there a compensatory mechanism by members of the Cntf family, possibly downstream of pStat3, which explains the in vivo behavioral results of Cntf -/- mice and can likewise account for the largely inconspicuous phenotype in CNTF-deficient humans? 2) How exactly does Cntf influence LTP through Stat3 signaling? To unravel the underlying mechanism further experiments should therefore investigate whether microtubule dynamics downstream of Stat3 and stathmin signaling are involved in the Cntf-induced modulation of hippocampal synaptic plasticity, similar to as it was shown in motoneurons.