Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Year of publication
- 2016 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Language
- English (2)
Keywords
- Taufliege (2)
- Aufmerksamkeit (1)
- Behavior (1)
- Drosophila (1)
- Drosophila melanogaster (1)
- Erlernte Hilflosigkeit (1)
- Gelernte Hilflosigkeit (1)
- Learned Helplessness (1)
- Selektive Wahrnehmung (1)
- Stress (1)
Institute
In order to select the appropriate behavior, it is important to choose the right behavior at the right time out of many options. It still remains unclear nowadays how exactly this is managed. To address this question, I expose flies (Drosophila melanogaster) to uncontrollable stress to study their behavior under restrictive circumstances by using the so-called shock box. Exposing animals to uncontrollable stress may have an impact on subsequent behavior and can last for some time. The animal learns that whatever it does, it cannot change the situation and therefore can develop something called learned helplessness. The term was first conceptualized by two American psychologists Maier and Seligman (1967), who discovered this phenomenon while doing experiments with dogs. They found out that dogs which are exposed to inescapable stress, later fail in a learning task (‘shuttle box’).
In this work the walking patterns of three different types of experimental flies, walking in a small dark chamber, were evaluated. Using the triadic design (Seligman and Maier, 1967), flies were either exposed to electric shock randomly (yoked), could turn it off by being active (master) or did not receive punishment at all (control). Master flies were shocked whenever they sat for more than 0.9 seconds. At the same time yoked flies received a shock as well independent of what they were doing, to ensure the same amount of shocks received and to create random punishment pattern for the yoked group. With this so-called no-idleness paradigm flies were conditioned either 10 minutes, which resulted in a short (3 minutes) after-effect, or 20 minutes that turned out to be more stable (10 minutes).
In a second part, the behavior during the 20 minute conditioning and a 10 minutes post-test was described in detail. Female flies of the yoked group developed lower activity levels, longer pauses and walked more slowly than master and control flies during conditioning. In the time after the shocks while still in the box, the yoked flies also reduced the frequency and duration of walking bouts as well as their walking speed. Additionally, they took more time to resume walking after the onset of an electric shock than master flies (escape latency) and turned out to make less pauses lasting between 1-1.5 seconds which supports the finding concerning the escape latency.
Male flies, tested under the same conditions, showed a slightly weaker after-effect regarding the difference between master and yoked during conditioning and post-test when compared to female flies.
When comparing the 20 minutes conditioning with subsequent 10 minutes test in the heat and the shock box in parallel, one finds the same effect: Flies which do not have control over the shocks, lower their activity, make less but longer pauses and walk more slowly than their respective master flies. Despite the similar effect of heat and shock on the flies, some differences between the devices occurred, which can partly be explained by different humidity conditions as well as by different surfaces within the chambers.
When the control over the shocks is given back to the yoked flies, it takes them about seven minutes to realize it. One could also show that dopamine levels in the brain were reduced in comparison to flies which did not receive shocks. Yoked flies also were impaired in a place learning task (place learning) and their reaction to light (exit from the box towards the light) directly after conditioning.
After characterizing the walking behavior in the chambers, the study deals with the question whether the effects observed in the chambers transfer to different environments.
In free walk they only differed from flies which did not receive electric shocks and no effect of uncontrollability was transferred to courtship behavior. Handling as the cause could be excluded. Since handling could be exclude to be the cause of losing the effect, I assumed that the behavior shown in the boxes are context depend.
Not only were the after-effects of inescapable shock subject of the current research also the impact of the rearing situation on the response to electric shock was investigated in the present study. Flies which grew up in a single-reared situation turned out to be less affected by inescapable stress in both sexes.
In the next part, the first steps to unravel the neuronal underpinning were taken. A mutant – fumin – which is defective in the dopamine re-uptake transporter showed less reaction to inescapable foot shocks, while a mutant for the gene which encodes an adenylate cyclase (rutabaga2080) resulted in a good score during conditioning, but showed no stable after-effect. Downregulating the expression of the adenylate cyclase gene (rutabaga) in different parts of the mushroom bodies showed, that rutabaga is necessary in the α’β’-lobes for expressing the differences between master and yoked flies in the no-idleness paradigm. The study further confirmed previous findings, that rutabaga is needed in operant but not in classical conditioning.
As a result, the study could show that not the stimulus itself causes the state of uncontrollability but the fact that the fly learned that it was not in control of the stimulus. This state turned out to be context and time dependent.
Finding the right behavior at the right time is one of the major tasks of brains. In a natural scenery there is often an abundance of stimuli present and the brain has to separate the relevant from the irrelevant ones. Selective visual attention (SVA) is a property of higher visual systems that achieves this separation, as it allows to ‘[…] focus on one source of sensory input to the exclusion of others’ (Luck and Mangun, 1996). There are probably several forms of SVA depending upon the criteria used for the separation, such as salience, color, location in space, novelty, or motion. Many studies have investigated SVA in humans and non-human primates. However, complex functions like attention were initially not expected to be already implemented in the brains of simple organisms like Drosophila. After a first demonstration of selective attention in the fly (Wolf and Heisenberg, 1980), it took some time until other studies included attentional mechanisms in their argumentation to explain certain behaviors of Drosophila. However, their definition and characterization of attention differed and often was ambiguous.
Here, one particular form, spatially selective visual attention in the fly Drosophila is investigated. It has been shown earlier that the fly spontaneously may restrict its behavioral responses in stationary flight to the visual stimuli on one side of the visual field. On the basis of experiments of Sareen et al., (2011) it has been conjectured that the fly has a focus of attention (FoA) and that the fly responds to the visual stimuli within this area of the visual field. Whether the FoA is the adequate concept for this spatial property of SVA in the fly needs to be further discussed and is a subject also of the present study. At this stage, the concept will be used in the description of the new results expanding the characterization of SVA.
This study continued the investigation of SVA during tethered flight with variable but controlled visual input and an automated primary data evaluation. This standardized paradigm allowed for analysis of wild-type behavior as well as for a comparison of several mutant and pharmacologically manipulated strains to the wild-type. Some properties of human SVA like the occurrence of externally as well as internally caused shifts of attention were found in Drosophila and it could be shown, that SVA in the fly can be externally guided and has an attention span. Additionally, a neurotransmitter and proteins, which play a significant role in SVA were discovered. Based on this, the genetic tools available for Drosophila provided the means to a first examination of cells and circuits involved in SVA. Finally, the free walk behavior of flies that had been shown to have compromised SVA was characterized. The results suggested that the observed phenotypes of SVA were not behavior specific.
Covert shifts of the FoA were investigated. The FoA can be externally guided by visual cues to one or the other side of the visual field and even after the cue has disappeared it remains there for <4s. An intriguing finding of this study is the fact, that the quality of the cue determines whether it is attractive or repellent. For example a cue can be changed from being repellent (negative) to being attractive (positive) by changing its oscillation amplitude from 4° to 2°. Testing the effectiveness of cues in the upper and lower visual field separately, revealed that the perception of a cue by the fly is not exclusively based on a sum of its specifications. Because positive cueing did not have an after-effect in each of the two half-fields alone, but did so if the cue was shown in both, the fly seems to evaluate the cue for each combination of parameters specifically. Whether this evaluation of the cue changed on a trial-to-trial basis or if the cue in some cases failed to shift the FoA can at this point not be determined.
Looking at the responses of the fly to the displacement of a black vertical stripe showed that they can be categorized as no responses, syn-directional responses (following the direction of motion of the stripe) and anti-directional responses (in the opposite direction of the motion of the stripe). The yaw-torque patterns of the latter bared similarities with spontaneous body saccades and they most likely represented escape attempts of the fly. Syn-directional responses, however, were genuine object responses, distinguishable by a longer latency until they were elicited and a larger amplitude. These properties as well as the distribution of response polarities were not influenced by the presence or absence of a cue. When two stripes were displaced simultaneously in opposite directions the rate of no responses increased in comparison to the displacement of a single stripe. If one of the stripes was cued, both, the responses towards and away from the side of cue resembled the syn-directional responses.
Significant progress was made with the elucidation of the neuronal underpinnings of SVA. Ablation of the mushroom bodies (MB) demonstrated their requirement for SVA. Furthermore, it was shown that dopamine signaling has to be balanced between too much and too little. Either inhibiting the synthesis of dopamine or its re-uptake at the synapse via the dDAT impaired the flies’ susceptibility to cueing. Using the Gal4/UAS system, cell specific expression or knockdown of the dDAT was used to scrutinize the role of MB sub-compartments in SVA. The αβ-lobes turned out to be necessary and sufficient to maintain SVA. The Gal4-line c708a labels only a subset of Kenyon cells (KC) within the αβ-lobes, αβposterior. These cells stand out, because of (A) the mesh-like arrangement of their fibers within the lobes and (B) the fact that unlike the other KCs they bypass the calyx and thereby the main source of olfactory input to the MBs, forming connections only in the posterior accessory calyx (Tanaka et al., 2008). This structure receives no or only marginal olfactory input, suggesting for it a role in tasks other than olfaction. This study shows their requirement in a visual task by demonstrating that they are necessary to uphold SVA. Restoring dDAT function in these approximately only 90 cells was probably insufficient to lower the dopamine concentration at the relevant synapses and hence a rescue failed. Alternatively, the processes mediating SVA at the αβ-lobes might require an interplay between all of their KCs. In conclusion, the results provide an initial point for future research to fully understand the localization of and circuitry required for SVA in the brain.
In the experiments described so far, attention has been externally guided. However, flies are also able to internally shift their FoA without any cues from the outside world. In a set of 60 consecutive simultaneous displacements of two stripes, they were more likely to produce a response with the same polarity as the preceding one than a random polarity selection predicted. This suggested a dwelling of the FoA on one side of the visual field. Assuming that each response was influenced by the previous one in a way that the probability to repeat the response polarity was increased by a certain factor (dwelling factor, df), a random selection of response type including a df was computed. Implementation of the df removed the difference between observed probability of polarity repetition and the one suggested by random selection. When the interval between displacements was iteratively increased to 5s, no significant df could be detected anymore for pauses longer than 4s. In conclusion, Drosophila has an attention span of approximately 4s. Flies with a mutation in the radish gene expressed no after-effect of cueing and had a shortened attention span of about 1s. The dDAT inhibitor methylphenidate is able to rescue the first, but does not affect the latter phenotype. Probably, radish is differently involved in the two mechanisms.
This study showed, that endogenous (covert) shifts of spatially selective visual attention in the fly Drosophila can be internally and externally guided. The variables determining the quality of a cue turned out to be multifaceted and a more systematic approach is needed for a better understanding of what property or feature of the cue changes the way it is evaluated by the fly. A first step has been made to demonstrate that SVA is a fundamental process and compromising it can influence the characteristics of other behaviors like walking. The existence of an attention span, the dependence of SVA on dopamine as well as the susceptibility to pharmacological manipulations, which in humans are used to treat respective diseases, point towards striking similarities between SVA in humans and Drosophila.