Volume 16, Issue 15, Pages (August 2006)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volume 21, Issue 10, Pages (May 2011)
Advertisements

Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages (March 2015)
Volume 22, Issue 9, Pages (February 2018)
Caroline Medioni, Mirana Ramialison, Anne Ephrussi, Florence Besse 
Cholinergic Control of Synchronized Seminal Emissions in Drosophila
Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages (November 2013)
Volume 61, Issue 4, Pages (February 2009)
Sokol V. Todi, Josef D. Franke, Daniel P. Kiehart, Daniel F. Eberl 
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages (March 2013)
translin Is Required for Metabolic Regulation of Sleep
Volume 123, Issue 5, Pages (December 2005)
Deconstructing Memory in Drosophila
Volume 53, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Age-Related Changes in Insulin-like Signaling Lead to Intermediate-Term Memory Impairment in Drosophila  Kento Tanabe, Motoyuki Itoh, Ayako Tonoki  Cell.
Bennett Drew Ferris, Jonathan Green, Gaby Maimon  Current Biology 
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages (March 2015)
Luyuan Pan, Yong Q. Zhang, Elvin Woodruff, Kendal Broadie 
Volume 27, Issue 15, Pages e4 (August 2017)
Volume 15, Issue 9, Pages (May 2005)
The Conserved Immunoglobulin Superfamily Member SAX-3/Robo Directs Multiple Aspects of Axon Guidance in C. elegans  Jennifer A Zallen, B.Alexander Yi,
Distinct Protein Domains and Expression Patterns Confer Divergent Axon Guidance Functions for Drosophila Robo Receptors  Bettina Spitzweck, Marko Brankatschk,
Masayuki Koganezawa, Ken-ichi Kimura, Daisuke Yamamoto  Current Biology 
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages (February 2013)
Volume 23, Issue 13, Pages (July 2013)
Drosophila Learn Opposing Components of a Compound Food Stimulus
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages (May 2015)
Volume 20, Issue 16, Pages (August 2010)
Volume 139, Issue 2, Pages (October 2009)
The Molecular Basis of Sugar Sensing in Drosophila Larvae
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages (August 2018)
GABAA Receptor RDL Inhibits Drosophila Olfactory Associative Learning
Tomoyuki Miyashita, Emi Kikuchi, Junjiro Horiuchi, Minoru Saitoe 
Giovanni Marchetti, Gaia Tavosanis  Current Biology 
Volume 15, Issue 15, Pages (August 2005)
A GABAergic Feedback Shapes Dopaminergic Input on the Drosophila Mushroom Body to Promote Appetitive Long-Term Memory  Alice Pavlowsky, Johann Schor,
Mario R. Pagani, Kimihiko Oishi, Bruce D. Gelb, Yi Zhong  Cell 
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages (March 2016)
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages (March 2015)
Volume 79, Issue 5, Pages (September 2013)
Volume 22, Issue 21, Pages (November 2012)
Volume 21, Issue 19, Pages (October 2011)
The Role of Rapid, Local, Postsynaptic Protein Synthesis in Learning-Related Synaptic Facilitation in Aplysia  Greg Villareal, Quan Li, Diancai Cai, David L.
Let-7-Complex MicroRNAs Regulate the Temporal Identity of Drosophila Mushroom Body Neurons via chinmo  Yen-Chi Wu, Ching-Huan Chen, Adam Mercer, Nicholas S.
Volume 86, Issue 2, Pages (April 2015)
Benjamin J. Matthews, Wesley B. Grueber  Current Biology 
Clock and cycle Limit Starvation-Induced Sleep Loss in Drosophila
Bonnie Chu, Vincent Chui, Kevin Mann, Michael D. Gordon 
Extinction Antagonizes Olfactory Memory at the Subcellular Level
Volume 15, Issue 15, Pages (August 2005)
Volume 25, Issue 11, Pages (June 2015)
The Color-Vision Circuit in the Medulla of Drosophila
Glial Cells Physiologically Modulate Clock Neurons and Circadian Behavior in a Calcium-Dependent Manner  Fanny S. Ng, Michelle M. Tangredi, F. Rob Jackson 
Age-Related Changes in Insulin-like Signaling Lead to Intermediate-Term Memory Impairment in Drosophila  Kento Tanabe, Motoyuki Itoh, Ayako Tonoki  Cell.
Volume 105, Issue 6, Pages (June 2001)
Volume 22, Issue 19, Pages (October 2012)
Volume 13, Issue 10, Pages (May 2003)
Volume 25, Issue 22, Pages (November 2015)
Aging Specifically Impairs amnesiac-Dependent Memory in Drosophila
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages (March 2014)
The Influence of Light on Temperature Preference in Drosophila
Volume 22, Issue 21, Pages (November 2012)
Marie P. Suver, Akira Mamiya, Michael H. Dickinson  Current Biology 
Giovanni Marchetti, Gaia Tavosanis  Current Biology 
Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages e3 (March 2018)
Shixing Zhang, Gregg Roman  Current Biology 
Caroline Medioni, Mirana Ramialison, Anne Ephrussi, Florence Besse 
Allison L. Blum, Wanhe Li, Mike Cressy, Josh Dubnau  Current Biology 
Shamik DasGupta, Scott Waddell  Current Biology 
Masayuki Koganezawa, Ken-ichi Kimura, Daisuke Yamamoto  Current Biology 
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages (October 2004)
Presentation transcript:

Volume 16, Issue 15, Pages 1524-1530 (August 2006) Drosophila Dorsal Paired Medial Neurons Provide a General Mechanism for Memory Consolidation  Alex C. Keene, Michael J. Krashes, Benjamin Leung, Jessica A. Bernard, Scott Waddell  Current Biology  Volume 16, Issue 15, Pages 1524-1530 (August 2006) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.022 Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Rewarded Odor Memory Decays Quickly in amnesiac Mutant Flies, and Expression of an amn Transgene in DPM Neurons Restores Wild-Type Levels of Memory (A) Wild-type, amn1, and amnX8 mutant flies were conditioned with odor and sugar reward (as described in the main text and Experimental Procedures), and different populations were tested once for odor memory 3, 60, 180, and 360 min after training. amn mutant flies have a small but significant initial performance defect (p < 0.05). (B) Wild-type, amn mutant, and amn mutant flies expressing amn in DPM neurons were trained with odor and sugar reward and tested for memory 3 hr after conditioning. Performance of amn1; c316/uas-amn and amn1/amnX8; c316/uas-amn flies was statistically indistinguishable from wild-type flies (p = 1 and p = 0.99, respectively) and was statistically different from amnX8, amn1; uas-amn, and amn1/amnX8; uas-amn flies (all p < 0.05). Error bars are SEM. The asterisks mark groups with statistically different performance from the unmarked groups. Current Biology 2006 16, 1524-1530DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.022) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 DPM Neuron Output Is Required for 3 hr Rewarded Odor Memory Temperature shift protocols are shown pictographically above each graph. (A) The permissive temperature of 25°C does not affect 3 hr reward-odor memory. Performance of c316; uas-shits1 flies (p > 0.2) or Mz717; uas-shits1 flies (p > 0.5) was indistinguishable from uas-shits1 flies. All genotypes were trained and tested for 3 hr memory at 25°C. (B) Disrupting DPM output at the restrictive temperature of 31°C abolishes memory. Performances of c316; uas-shits1 flies (p < 0.0005) and Mz717; uas-shits1 flies (p < 0.005) were statistically different from uas-shits1 flies. All genotypes were trained and tested for 3 hr rewarded odor memory at 31°C. Error bars are SEM. The statistically different groups are marked with an asterisk. Current Biology 2006 16, 1524-1530DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.022) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 DPM Neuron Output between Training and Testing Is Required for 3 hr Rewarded Odor Memory The temperature shift protocols are shown pictographically above each graph. (A) Blocking DPM output during training does not affect 3 hr reward-odor memory. Performance of c316; uas-shits1 flies was indistinguishable from uas-shits1 (p > 0.9) and wild-type (p > 0.1) flies. Flies were incubated at 31°C for 15 min prior to and during training. Immediately after training, they were returned to 25°C and tested for 3 hr memory. (B) Blocking DPM output during testing does not affect 3 hr reward-odor memory. Performance of c316; uas-shits1 flies was indistinguishable from uas-shits1 (p = 0.2) and wild-type (p = 0.2) flies. Flies were trained at 25°C, and 165 min later they were shifted to 31°C. 15 min later, 3 hr memory was tested at 31°C. (C) Blocking DPM output immediately after training severely impairs 3 hr reward-odor memory. Performance of c316; uas-shits1 flies was statistically different from uas-shits1 (p < 0.01) and wild-type (p < 0.01) flies. Flies were trained at 25°C, and immediately after training they were shifted to 31°C for 30 min. Flies were then returned to 25°C and tested for 3 hr odor memory at 25°C. (D) Blocking DPM output from 30 to 60 min does not significantly disrupt reward-odor memory. Performance of c316; uas-shits1 flies was statistically indistinguishable from uas-shits1 (p > 0.05) and wild-type (p = 0.1) flies. Flies were trained at 25°C, and 30 min after training they were shifted to 31°C for 30 min. Flies were then returned to 25°C and tested for 3 hr odor memory at 25°C. (E) Blocking DPM output immediately after training with the Mz717{GAL4} driver and uas-shits1 severely impairs 3 hr rewarded odor memory. Performance of Mz717; uas-shits1 flies was statistically different from uas-shits1 (p = 0.02) and wild-type (p < 0.0005) flies. Error bars are SEM. The statistically different groups are marked with an asterisk. Current Biology 2006 16, 1524-1530DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.022) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 DPM Neurons that Primarily Project to the α′ and β′ MB Lobes Are Functional for Rewarded and Punished Odor Memory (A–E) Projection views of DPM neuron ramification throughout all the MB lobes. The optical sections with the DPM cell body have been removed to improve visibility of the MB lobe innervation. Single-focal-plane views of the wild-type and DScam17-2::GFP-generated aberrant projections are shown in Figures S1 and S2. (A) Wild-type DPM neuron projections to all the MB lobes visualized by expressing uas-CD8::GFP with c316{GAL4}. (B) The same wild-type DPM neurons shown in (A) but with the MB α and β lobes (red) counterstained with FASII antibody. (C) The same wild-type DPM neurons shown in (A) and (B) but with MB α and β lobes (red) counterstained with FASII antibody and α′ and β′ lobes (blue) stained with TRIO antibody. (D) Expressing a uas-DScam17-2::GFP transgene in DPM neurons with c316{GAL4} results in DPM neurons that predominantly project to the MB α′ and β′ lobes. DPM projections are visualized (green) by coexpressing uas-DScam17-2::GFP and uas-CD2 and immunostaining with a CD2 antibody. (E) The same anti-CD2 labeled uas-DScam17-2::GFP-expressing DPM neurons shown in (D) but with the MB α and β lobes (red) counterstained with FASII antibody. Areas where DPM projections to the MB lobes are greatly reduced or absent are marked with arrowheads for comparison with wild-type DPM neurons shown in (B). (F) Gross anatomy of the MB lobes revealed by FASII (red) and TRIO (blue) immunostaining. In these branched lobes, FASII and TRIO are mutually exclusive. The γ lobe neurons lie along the front of the horizontally projecting lobe subdivision and are labeled by both anti-FASII and anti-TRIO. The MB lobes are symmetrical. Scale bar represents 20 μm. (G and H) Prime lobe-projecting DPM neurons retain function. Wild-type, amnX8, uas-DScam17-2::GFP, and uas-DScam17-2::GFP; c316 flies were conditioned in either the rewarded (G) or the punished (H) paradigm and were tested for 1 hr memory. Performance of uas-DScam17-2::GFP and uas-DScam17-2::GFP; c316 flies was statistically indistinguishable from wild-type flies ([G], rewarded memory, uas-DScam17-2::GFP p > 0.95, uas-DScam17-2::GFP; c316 p > 0.27; [H], punished memory, uas-DScam17-2::GFP p > 0.7, uas-DScam17-2::GFP; c316 p = 0.5) and was statistically different from amnX8 flies ([G], rewarded memory, uas-DScam17-2::GFP p < 0.0001, uas-DScam17-2::GFP; c316 p < 0.0001; [H], punished memory, uas-DScam17-2::GFP p < 0.05, uas-DScam17-2::GFP; c316 p < 0.003). Error bars are SEM. The statistically different groups are marked with an asterisk. Current Biology 2006 16, 1524-1530DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.022) Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions