A Single Pair of Neurons Modulates Egg-Laying Decisions in Drosophila

Chia-Lin Wu; Tsai-Feng Fu; Yen-Yun Chou; Sheng-Rong Yeh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121335

Abstract

Animals have to judge environmental cues and choose the most suitable option for them from many different options. Female fruit flies selecting an optimum site to deposit their eggs is a biologically important reproductive behavior. When given the direct choice between ovipositing their eggs in a sucrose-containing medium or a caffeine-containing medium, female flies prefer the latter. However, the neural circuits and molecules that regulate this decision-making processes during egg-laying site selection remain poorly understood. In the present study, we found that amnesiac (amn) mutant flies show significant defects in egg-laying decisions, and such defects can be reversed by expressing the wild-type amn transgene in two dorsal paired medial (DPM) neurons in the brain. Silencing neuronal activity with an inward rectifier potassium channel (Kir2.1) in DPM neurons also impairs egg-laying decisions. Finally, the activity in mushroom body αβ neurons is required for the egg-laying behavior, suggesting a possible “DPM-αβ neurons” brain circuit modulating egg-laying decisions. Our results highlight the brain circuits and molecular mechanisms of egg-laying decisions in Drosophila.

Citation: Wu C-L, Fu T-F, Chou Y-Y, Yeh S-R (2015) A Single Pair of Neurons Modulates Egg-Laying Decisions in Drosophila. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0121335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121335

Academic Editor: Efthimios M. C. Skoulakis, Alexander Fleming Biomedical Sciences Research Center, GREECE

Received: November 14, 2014; Accepted: February 10, 2015; Published: March 17, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Wu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper file.

Funding: This work was supported by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology 101-2221-E-182-080-MY3, 102-2321-B-182-010, 101-2221-E-007-071-MY3 (to C.-L. W), 101-2311-M-260-002, 103-2633-B-260 -001 (to T.-F. F ), a grant from the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital CMRPD1B0323 (to C.-L. W), and a grant from the Taichung Veterans General Hospital/National Chi Nan University Joint Research Program TCVGH-NCNU1037905 (to T.-F.F.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Drosophila females selecting a suitable site to deposit their eggs is a biologically important behavior that allows the study of a simple decision-making process [1,2,3,4]. Female flies have to judge and select a proper site for laying eggs to ensure that the environment is optimal for survival of their offspring [1,2,4]. The specific molecular mechanisms and neural circuits that control egg-laying decisions in Drosophila are poorly understood

The amnesiac (amn) gene encodes a neuropeptide (AMN) whose function was first identified in the context of olfactory associative memory in Drosophila [5]. An amn mutant can associate specific odors with an electrical foot shock or a sugar reward, but will forget this information quickly, which suggests that amn is specifically involved in memory instead of initial learning [5,6,7]. A remarkable study demonstrates that the amn gene product is strongly expressed in two dorsal paired medial (DPM) neurons that innervate all lobes of the mushroom body [6]. Targeted expression of the amn gene in two DPM neurons rescues olfactory associative memory in an amn mutant background [6]. The Drosophila mushroom body is a paired neuropil structure crucial for olfactory associative memory and can be structurally divided into the αβ, α´β´, and γ neurons according to their axonal fiber distributions. The dendrites of the mushroom body form a calyx and project their axons anteriorly to form the peduncle and extend to the αβ, α´β´, and γ lobes in the middle brain [8]. Numerous studies on the behavior and brain-anatomy of fruit flies have identified that the mushroom body is crucial for olfactory associative memory [9,10,11,12,13,14], sleep [15,16], and temperature-preference behavior [17,18].

In this study, we first identified that the amn gene product is essential for normal egg-laying decisions by analyzing a collection of amn mutant flies. In addition, genetically silencing the neuronal activity in DPM neurons disrupts this behavior. Targeting the expression of the amn transgene in two DPM neurons can fully reverse this behavioral defect in amn mutant flies. Finally, we demonstrated that neuronal activity in the mushroom body αβ neurons is required for normal egg-laying decisions suggesting that the possible “DPM-αβ neuron” circuit controls this behavior via AMN neuropeptide release.

Results

Aged flies exhibit normal egg-laying decisions

It has been reported that female flies avoid laying eggs on a medium containing sucrose, and that this egg-laying site selection relies on a simple decision-based behavioral process [1]. We took advantage of this behavioral assay to explore the molecules and brain circuits underlying egg-laying decisions. A plastic egg-laying chamber was placed in a sweet (sucrose-containing) and a bitter (caffeine-containing) 1% soft agarose medium, and the two media were separated by a region of 3% hard agarose, which contained a small gap in the middle to prevent diffusion of sucrose or caffeine to the opposite site [2](Fig. 1A). Consistent with the previous findings, female flies prefer to deposit their eggs on a bitter substrate (Fig. 1B)[1]. Decision-making processes involve neuronal function in the brain, and aging significantly alters the functioning of the nervous system [19,20]. We first tested whether egg-laying decisions changed with aging. The 21-day old female flies were used for the behavioral assays [21], and we found that aged flies still executed normal egg-laying decisions compared to young flies (5-day old) (Fig. 1B).

Download:

Fig 1. Aging does not alter Drosophila egg-laying decisions.

(A) Schematic representation of the chamber for egg-laying decisions assays. Two 1% agarose media, containing either 100 mM sucrose (orange) or 100 mM caffeine (blue), were loaded above the 3% hard agarose medium (grey). A gap (0.1 cm) was made on the 3% agarose medium in the middle of the chamber. (B) Egg-laying decisions of wild-type flies at different ages (5-day and 21-day). Each value represents mean ± SEM (N = 36–42, n.s., not statistically significant).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121335.g001

amn expression in two DPM neurons is essential for egg-laying decisions

amn encodes a preproneuropeptide with limited similarity to pituitary-adenylyl-cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP) [22]. It has been reported that AMN plays a critical role in behaviors of Drosophila such as olfactory memory and sleep [5,7,23]. To examine the role of the amn gene in egg-laying decisions, a collection of amn mutants were analyzed for their egg-laying preference in the behavioral chambers. Interestingly, we found that amn¹, amn^28A, amn^c651, and amn^X8 mutants showed significant defects in egg-laying preference compared to wild-type flies (Fig. 2A). We further examined the egg-laying preference in the chamber containing sucrose or caffeine substrate in one side and a plain substrate in the opposite side. Consistent with the previous findings, wild-type female flies avoided laying eggs on sucrose (Fig. 2B) or caffeine (Fig. 2C) substrates when the other option was a plain substrate [1]. All the amn mutants show significant difference in egg-laying preference in sucrose/plain or caffeine/plain chambers compared to wild-type flies (Fig. 2B and 2C). These results indicate the amn gene is critical for egg-laying decisions in sucrose/caffeine, sucrose/plain, and caffeine/plain mediums.

Download:

Fig 2. amn mutants show defects in egg-laying decisions.

(A) In sucrose/caffeine chamber, amn¹, amn^28A, amn^c651, and amn^X8 flies showed significant difference in egg-laying decisions compared to wild-type flies. amn^X8 showed significant difference compared to the other amn mutants. Each value represents mean ± SEM (n = 34–35, ***P < 0.001). (B) In sucrose/plain chamber, amn¹, amn^28A, amn^c651, and amn^X8 flies showed significant difference in egg-laying decisions compared to wild-type flies. amn^X8 showed significant difference compared to the other amn mutants. Each value represents mean ± SEM (n = 20, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01). (C) In caffeine/plain chamber, amn¹, amn^28A, amn^c651, and amn^X8 flies showed significant difference in egg-laying decisions compared to wild-type flies. Each value represents mean ± SEM (n = 23–27, ***P < 0.001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121335.g002

Although the amn gene is expressed throughout the fly brain, targeting expression of the amn gene in two DPM neurons restores the olfactory memory in amn mutant flies [6]. We therefore tested whether the amn gene product in DPM neurons is involved in egg-laying decisions. We used a GAL4/UAS system to target expression of the wild-type amn transgene (amn⁺) in DPM neuron by applying three independent DPM specific GAL4 drivers, the C316-GAL4, VT6412-GAL4, and VT64246-GAL4 (Figs. 3A, 3B, and 3C). amn¹ is an EMS-induced mutation in the allele of the amn gene that causes a significant reduction in the amn transcript [24]. Therefore, we chose amn¹ to perform the following rescue experiment. Flies carrying the amn¹/amn¹; +/+; C316-GAL4/UAS-amn⁺, or amn¹/amn¹; +/+; VT6412-GAL4/UAS-amn⁺, or amn¹/amn¹; +/+; VT64246-GAL4/UAS-amn⁺ showed normal egg-laying preferences compared to wild-type flies, indicating that targeting expression of the amn transgene in DPM neurons restored typical egg-laying preference (Fig. 3D). In addition, acute silencing of the neuronal activity in DPM neurons by an inward rectifier potassium channel (Kir2.1) disrupts egg-laying preferences (Fig. 3E), suggesting a role of neurotransmission in DPM neurons for execution of normal egg-laying preference.

Download:

Fig 3. Expression of amn transgene in DPM neurons reverses the defects of egg-laying decisions in amn mutants.

(A) The expression pattern of C316-GAL4 (green). The brain was immunostained with DLG antibody (red). Arrowheads indicate the somata of DPM neurons. The scale bar represents 50 μm. Genotype was as follow: UAS-mCD8::GFP/+; C316-GAL4/UAS-mCD8::GFP. (B) The expression pattern of VT6412-GAL4 (green). The brain was immunostained with DLG antibody (red). Arrowheads indicate the somata of DPM neurons. The scale bar represents 50 μm. Genotype was as follow: UAS-mCD8::GFP/+; VT64246-GAL4/UAS-mCD8::GFP. (C) The expression pattern of VT64246-GAL4 (green). The brain was immunostained with DLG antibody (red). Arrowheads indicate the somata of DPM neurons. The scale bar represents 50 μm. Genotype was as follow: UAS-mCD8::GFP/+; VT64246-GAL4/UAS-mCD8::GFP. (D) Overexpression of the amn transgene (amn⁺) in DPM neurons reversed the deficiency of egg-laying decisions in amn¹ background. Each value represents mean ± SEM (n = 22–24, ***P < 0.001, n.s., not statistically significant). Genotypes were as follows: (1) +/+, (2) amn¹/amn¹, (3) amn¹/amn¹; +/+; +/UAS-amn⁺, (4) amn¹/amn¹; +/+; C316-GAL4/+, (5) amn¹/amn¹; +/+; VT6412-GAL4/+, (6) amn¹/amn¹; +/+; VT64246-GAL4/+, (7) amn¹/amn¹; +/+; C316-GAL4/UAS-amn⁺, (8) amn¹/amn¹; +/+; VT6412-GAL4/UAS-amn⁺, and (9) amn¹/amn¹; +/+; VT64246-GAL4/UAS-amn⁺. (E) Effects of acute silencing of neuronal activity in DPM neurons on egg-laying decisions. The schematics of the temperature shift protocols are shown above each graph. Each value represents mean ± SEM (n = 17–26, ***P < 0.001. n.s., not statistically significant). Genotypes were as follows: (1) +/+; VT6412-GAL4/+, (2) tubP-GAL80^ts/+; UAS-Kir2.1/+, and (3) tubP-GAL80^ts/+; VT6412-GAL4/UAS-Kir2.1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121335.g003

Mushroom body αβ neurons are required for egg-laying decisions

The fibers of DPM neurons innervate the mushroom body, and both axons and dendrites are evenly distributed in the lobes and the anterior peduncle of the mushroom body [6,25]. Therefore, we examined the role of the mushroom body neurons in egg-laying preferences of female flies. The Drosophila mushroom body consists of 2000 neurons in each hemisphere of the brain, and the neurons in the mushroom body can be classified into the γ, α´β´, and αβ subsets [8,26]. We examined the effects of acute inhibition of activity in different subsets of mushroom body neurons by tubP-GAL80^ts; UAS-Kir2.1 combined with R16A06-GAL4 (γ neurons; Fig. 4A) or VT30604-GAL4 (α´β´ neurons; Fig. 4B) or VT49246-GAL4 (αβ neurons; Fig. 4C). Surprisingly, we found that only inhibiting the neuronal activity in the αβ neurons disrupted the normal female egg-laying preference (Fig. 4D). These data suggest that the release of the AMN neuropeptide from DPM neurons onto the mushroom body αβ neurons regulates egg-laying preference in female flies.

Download:

Fig 4. Neural activity in mushroom body αβ neurons is required for normal egg-laying decisions.

(A) Preferential expression of R16A06-GAL4 in mushroom body γ neurons (green). The brain was immunostained with DLG antibody (red). The scale bar represents 50 μm. Genotype was as follow: UAS-mCD8::GFP/+; R16A06-GAL4/UAS-mCD8::GFP. (B) Preferential expression of VT30604-GAL4 in mushroom body α´β´ neurons (green). The brain was immunostained with DLG antibody (red). The scale bar represents 50 μm. Genotype was as follow: UAS-mCD8::GFP/+; VT30604-GAL4/UAS-mCD8::GFP. (C) Preferential expression of VT49246-GAL4 in mushroom body αβ neurons (green). The brain was immunostained with DLG antibody (red). The scale bar represents 50 μm. Genotype was as follow: UAS-mCD8::GFP/+; VT49246-GAL4/UAS-mCD8::GFP. (D) Effects of acute silencing of neuronal activity in different mushroom body neuron subsets on egg-laying decisions. The temperature shift protocols are shown schematically above each graph. Each value represents mean ± SEM (n = 10–25, ***P < 0.001. n.s., not statistically significant). Genotypes were as follows: (1) tubP-GAL80^ts/+; +/UAS-Kir2.1, (2) +/+; R16A06-GAL4/+, (3) +/+; VT30604-GAL4/+, (4) +/+; VT49246-GAL4/+, (5) tubP-GAL80^ts/+;R16A06-GAL4/UAS-Kir2.1, (6) tubP-GAL80^ts/+;VT30604-GAL4/UAS-Kir2.1, and (7) tubP-GAL80^ts/+;VT49246-GAL4/UAS-Kir2.1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121335.g004

Discussion

The egg-laying site selection by female fruit flies provides a suitable system to study the cellular mechanisms of a simple decision-making behavior [1,2]. When given the direct choice between a sucrose-containing medium and a caffeine-containing medium, flies prefer to lay eggs on the latter. This decision-making process during egg-laying site selection is unchanged in aged animals, suggesting that aging does not dramatically alter the neural activity involved in egg-laying decisions (Fig. 1).

amn¹ is the first amnesiac mutant isolated from the behavioral screening for olfactory memory mutants by Quinn et al [5]. Here, we identified the crucial role of the amn gene on egg-laying decisions in female flies. The egg-laying preference is altered in amn¹, amn^28A, and amn^C651, and amn^X8 mutants compared to wild-type flies, implying that the amn gene product is important for normal egg-laying decisions (Fig. 2). Interestingly, we observed that the amn^X8 showed significant difference in egg-laying preference in sucrose/caffeine or sucrose/plain medium compared to the other amn mutants (Figs. 2A and 2B). The original amn¹ is an EMS-induced mutant allele in the amn gene while amn^28A and amn^c651 are P-element-induced mutations in the amn gene [5,6,24]. The amn^X8 was made by imprecise excision of the P-element from amn^28A, and a significant increase in ethanol-sensitive phenotype was found in amn^X8 compared to amn¹ and amn^28A [24]. It is noteworthy that amn^X8 contains possibly other GAL4 insertions elsewhere in the genome left after excision of amn^28A (Josh Dubnau unpublished data), which may cause a significant negative value of egg-laying preference index in sucrose/caffeine medium (Fig. 2A). Genetic expression of the wild-type amn transgene in DPM neurons of amn¹ mutant flies restores the deficiency of egg-laying preference, suggesting that the expression of AMN in DPM neurons is sufficient for normal egg-laying decisions (Fig. 3D). The AMN neuropeptide is a homologue of the vertebrate PACAP that mediates several physiological functions through stimulation of cAMP production [22,27], implying that the cAMP-signaling pathway is important for decision-making processes during egg-laying site selection in Drosophila.

Both the axons and dendrites of DPM neurons are evenly distributed in different lobes of the mushroom body, suggesting that DPM neurons receive from and transmit to the mushroom body [25,28]. It has been reported that the neurotransmissions from DPM or mushroom body α´β´ neurons are required for olfactory memory consolidation [13,28]. In addition, the projections of DPM neurons to the α´β´ lobes of the mushroom body are sufficient for stabilizing olfactory memory [28]. These data suggest the possible reciprocal feedback circuits between DPM-mushroom body α´β´ neurons for olfactory memory consolidation [13,28,29]. Our data indicate that AMN release from DPM neurons is critical for normal egg-laying decisions. Silencing the activity in mushroom body αβ neurons also affects this behavior, suggesting that the neural circuitry downstream of DPM neurons modulates egg-laying decisions (Figs. 3E and 4D). However, the neural activity in mushroom body α´β´ neurons is not required for normal egg-laying decisions (Fig. 4D), which indicates the involvement of separate subsets of mushroom body neuron during olfactory memory consolidation and egg-laying decisions. In addition to the AMN neuropeptide, it has been shown that DPM neurons also release serotonin (5HT) onto the mushroom body αβ neurons via the action of the 5HT1A receptor [30]. Whether 5HT and the 5HT1A receptor are required for egg-laying decisions is still unknown.

Interestingly, a recent study identified that different subsets of dopaminergic neurons play opposing roles in egg-laying preference on ethanol substrate in a concentration-dependent manner [3]. Neuronal activity in the mushroom body α´β´ neurons and the ellipsoid body R2 neurons is also required for normal egg-laying preference for ethanol in female flies [3]. We speculate that egg-laying decisions on different substrates (i.e. different concentrations of ethanol-containing foods or sucrose/caffeine containing medium) are mediated by independent subsets of mushroom body neurons. Further study is needed to establish the molecular and neural circuits in the mushroom body involved in decision-making processes during egg-laying site selection in Drosophila.

Materials and Methods

Fly strains

All the fly stocks were raised on standard cornmeal food at 25°C and 70% relative humidity on a 12:12 h light: dark cycle. The “Cantonized” w¹¹¹⁸ w(CS10) was used as the wild-type control. The C316-GAL4 (Bloomington stock number: 30830), amn¹ (Bloomington stock number: 5954), amn^28A, amn^C651, amn^X8, and UAS-amn⁺ flies have been described previously [6,7,21,24]. VT64246-GAL4 and VT30604-GAL4 flies have been described previously [25,30]. VT6412-GAL4 and VT49246-GAL4 flies were obtained from the Vienna Drosophila Resource Center (VDRC), Vienna Tile. The R16A06-GAL4 (Bloomington stock number: 48709) flies were obtained from Bloomington stock center. The tubP-GAL80^ts (Bloomington stock number: 7019); UAS-Kir2.1, and UAS-mCD8::GFP (Bloomington stock number: 5137); UAS-mCD8::GFP (Bloomington stock number: 5130) flies were gifts from Dr. Ann-Shyn Chiang.

Whole-mount immunostaining

Fly brain samples were dissected in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 20 min at room temperature. After fixation, the brain samples were incubated in PBS containing 1% Triton X-100 and 10% normal goat serum (PBS-T) and degassed in a vacuum chamber to expel tracheal air with six cycles (depressurize to 270 mmHg then hold for 10 min). Next, the brain samples were blocked and penetrated in PBS-T at 25°C for 2 h and then incubated in PBS-T containing 1:10 mouse 4F3 anti-discs large (DLG) monoclonal antibody (Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, University of Iowa) at 25°C for one day. After washing in PBS-T three times, the samples were incubated in 1:200 biotinylated goat anti-mouse or rabbit IgG (Molecular Probes) at 25°C for one day. Next, brain samples were washed and incubated in 1:500 Alexa Fluor 635 streptavidin (Molecular Probes) at 25°C for one day. After extensive washing, the brain samples were cleared and mounted in FocusClear (CelExplorer) for confocal imaging.

Confocal microscopy

Sample brains were imaged under a Zeiss LSM 700 confocal microscope with a 40X C-Apochromat water-immersion objective lens. To overcome the limited field of view, some samples were imaged twice, one for each hemisphere, with overlaps in between. We then combined the two parallel image stacks into a single dataset with an on-line stitch of ZEN software, using the overlapping region to align the two stacks.

Behavioral apparatus

First, 2.5 ml of 3% agarose (with 1% v/v of acetic acid and ethanol) was placed into the behavioral chambers (2.4 cm” L X 2.4 cm” W X 1.5 cm” H plastic container). After the 3% hard agarose solidified, 200 μl of sucrose medium (100 mM sucrose in 1% agarose that contains 1% v/v ethanol) and 200 μl of caffeine medium (100 μM of caffeine in 1% agarose that contains 1% v/v ethanol) were added to opposite sides of a chamber. A small gap (0.1 cm) was made to separate two mediums to prevent a diffusion problem between the two mediums. For the sucrose/plain or caffeine/plain assays, 200 μl of sucrose or caffeine medium were added in one sides and 200 μl of plain medium (1% agarose that contains 1% v/v ethanol) were added to opposite sides of the chamber.

Behavioral assay

We use a protocol modified from that of Yang et al. [1]. Ten virgin females of specific genotypes and 20 male wild-type flies were placed in empty food vials that only contained wet yeast paste for 24 h to allow them to mate. After mating, all the males were removed and three females were transferred into one behavioral chamber for a 2-h egg-laying preference assay. After 2 h, all the females were removed and the number of eggs on each side of the chamber were counted using a light microscope. The calculation of the performance index followed the method described in Yang et al [1]. The preference index is calculated using the following formula: [(number of eggs on caffeine medium – number of eggs on sucrose medium)/ (number of eggs on caffeine medium + number of eggs on sucrose medium)]X100. For sucrose/plain chamber assays (Fig. 2B), the preference index is calculated using following formula: [(number of eggs on plain medium – number of eggs on sucrose medium)/(number of eggs on plain medium + number of eggs on sucrose medium)]X100. For caffeine/plain chamber assays (Fig. 2C), the preference index is calculated using following formula: [(number of eggs on plain medium – number of eggs on caffeine medium)/(number of eggs on plain medium + number of eggs on caffeine medium)]X100.

Heat shock protocol

For acute Kir2.1 expression with tubP-GAL80^ts, flies were kept at 18°C throughout development. After eclosion, virgin female flies were collected and housed at 23°C or 30°C for 5 days. On the 4^th day, 10 virgin females and 20 male wild-type flies were placed in empty food vials that only contained wet yeast paste for 1 day at either 23°C or 30°C to allow them to mate. After mating, the female flies were separated from males, housed at 25°C for an 8-h incubation and then transferred into the behavioral chamber for the 2-h egg-laying preference assay at 25°C.

Statistics

All the raw data were analyzed parametrically with JMP5.1 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc.). The data were evaluated by one- or two-way ANOVAs, except for the two-group comparisons in Figs. 1B, 2A (+/+ and amn^X8), and 2B (+/+ and amn^X8), for which paired t-tests were used. Subsequent pairwise planned comparisons were adjusted for experiment-wise error (α), keeping the overall α at 0.05. All data are presented as the mean ± SEM.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Ann-Shyn Chiang, Bloomington fly stock centers, and VDRC stock centers for the fly stocks. We thank Fu-Yuan Cheng for the detailed instructions on the behavioral assay. We thank Dr. Josh Dubnau for helpful discussions of unpublished findings of his research group. We also thank Wei-Huan Hsu for generating Fig. 1A.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: C-LW. Performed the experiments: C-LW Y-YC S-RY. Analyzed the data: C-LW T-FF. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: C-LW T-FF. Wrote the paper: C-LW.

References

1. Yang CH, Belawat P, Hafen E, Jan LY, Jan YN. Drosophila egg-laying site selection as a system to study simple decision-making processes. Science 2008;319: 1679–1683. pmid:18356529
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Schwartz NU, Zhong L, Bellemer A, Tracey WD. Egg laying decisions in Drosophila are consistent with foraging costs of larval progeny. PLoS One 2012;7: e37910. pmid:22693584
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Azanchi R, Kaun KR, Heberlein U. Competing dopamine neurons drive oviposition choice for ethanol in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110: 21153–21158. pmid:24324162
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Kacsoh BZ, Lynch ZR, Mortimer NT, Schlenke TA. Fruit flies medicate offspring after seeing parasites. Science 2013;339: 947–950. pmid:23430653
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Quinn WG, Sziber PP, Booker R. The Drosophila memory mutant amnesiac. Nature 1979;277: 212–214. pmid:121760
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Waddell S, Armstrong JD, Kitamoto T, Kaiser K, Quinn WG. The amnesiac gene product is expressed in two neurons in the Drosophila brain that are critical for memory. Cell 2000;103: 805–813. pmid:11114336
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. DeZazzo J, Xia S, Christensen J, Velinzon K, Tully T. Developmental expression of an amn⁺ transgene rescues the mutant memory defect of amnesiac adults. J Neurosci 1999;19: 8740–8746. pmid:10516293
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Heisenberg M. Mushroom body memoir: from maps to models. Nat Rev Neurosci 2003;4: 266–275. pmid:12671643
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. de Belle JS, Heisenberg M. Associative odor learning in Drosophila abolished by chemical ablation of mushroom bodies. Science 1994;263: 692–695. pmid:8303280
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Connolly JB, Roberts IJ, Armstrong JD, Kaiser K, Forte M, Tully T, et al. Associative learning disrupted by impaired Gs signaling in Drosophila mushroom bodies. Science 1996;274: 2104–2107. pmid:8953046
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Dubnau J, Grady L, Kitamoto T, Tully T. Disruption of neurotransmission in Drosophila mushroom body blocks retrieval but not acquisition of memory. Nature 2001;411: 476–480. pmid:11373680
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. McGuire SE, Le PT, Davis RL. The role of Drosophila mushroom body signaling in olfactory memory. Science 2001;293: 1330–1333. pmid:11397912
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Krashes MJ, Keene AC, Leung B, Armstrong JD, Waddell S. Sequential use of mushroom body neuron subsets during Drosophila odor memory processing. Neuron 2007;53: 103–115. pmid:17196534
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Wu CL, Chiang AS. Genes and circuits for olfactory-associated long-term memory in Drosophila. J Neurogenet 2008;22: 257–284. pmid:19012072
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Joiner WJ, Crocker A, White BH, Sehgal A. Sleep in Drosophila is regulated by adult mushroom bodies. Nature 2006;441: 757–760. pmid:16760980
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Pitman JL, McGill JJ, Keegan KP, Allada R. A dynamic role for the mushroom bodies in promoting sleep in Drosophila. Nature 2006;441: 753–756. pmid:16760979
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Hong ST, Bang S, Hyun S, Kang J, Jeong K, Paik D, et al. cAMP signalling in mushroom bodies modulates temperature preference behaviour in Drosophila. Nature 2008;454: 771–775. pmid:18594510
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Bang S, Hyun S, Hong ST, Kang J, Jeong K, Park JJ, et al. Dopamine signalling in mushroom bodies regulates temperature-preference behaviour in Drosophila. PLoS Genet 2011;7: e1001346. pmid:21455291
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Wang XJ. Decision making in recurrent neuronal circuits. Neuron 2008;60: 215–234. pmid:18957215
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Sebastiao AM, Colino-Oliveira M, Assaife-Lopes N, Dias RB, Ribeiro JA. Lipid rafts, synaptic transmission and plasticity: impact in age-related neurodegenerative diseases. Neuropharmacology 2013;64: 97–107. pmid:22820274
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Tamura T, Chiang AS, Ito N, Liu HP, Horiuchi J, Tully T, et al. Aging specifically impairs amnesiac-dependent memory in Drosophila. Neuron 2003;40: 1003–1011. pmid:14659098
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Feany MB, Quinn WG. A neuropeptide gene defined by the Drosophila memory mutant amnesiac. Science 1995;268: 869–873. pmid:7754370
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Liu W, Guo F, Lu B, Guo A. amnesiac regulates sleep onset and maintenance in Drosophila melanogaster. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2008;372: 798–803. pmid:18514063
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Moore MS, DeZazzo J, Luk AY, Tully T, Singh CM, Heberlein U. Ethanol intoxication in Drosophila: Genetic and pharmacological evidence for regulation by the cAMP signaling pathway. Cell 1998;93: 997–1007. pmid:9635429
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Wu CL, Shih MF, Lee PT, Chiang AS. An octopamine-mushroom body circuit modulates the formation of anesthesia-resistant memory in Drosophila. Curr Biol 2013;23: 2346–2354. pmid:24239122
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Aso Y, Grubel K, Busch S, Friedrich AB, Siwanowicz I, Tanimoto H. The mushroom body of adult Drosophila characterized by GAL4 drivers. J Neurogenet 2009;23: 156–172. pmid:19140035
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Bhattacharya A, Lakhman SS, Singh S. Modulation of L-type calcium channels in Drosophila via a pituitary adenylyl cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP)-mediated pathway. J Biol Chem 2004;279: 37291–37297. pmid:15201281
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Keene AC, Krashes MJ, Leung B, Bernard JA, Waddell S. Drosophila dorsal paired medial neurons provide a general mechanism for memory consolidation. Curr Biol 2006;16: 1524–1530. pmid:16890528
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Wu CL, Shih MF, Lai JS, Yang HT, Turner GC, Chen L, et al. Heterotypic gap junctions between two neurons in the Drosophila brain are critical for memory. Curr Biol 2011;21: 848–854. pmid:21530256
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Lee PT, Lin HW, Chang YH, Fu TF, Dubnau J, Hirsh J, et al. Serotonin-mushroom body circuit modulating the formation of anesthesia-resistant memory in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108: 13794–13799. pmid:21808003
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Yang CH, Belawat P, Hafen E, Jan LY, Jan YN. Drosophila egg-laying site selection as a system to study simple decision-making processes. Science 2008;319: 1679–1683. pmid:18356529
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Schwartz NU, Zhong L, Bellemer A, Tracey WD. Egg laying decisions in Drosophila are consistent with foraging costs of larval progeny. PLoS One 2012;7: e37910. pmid:22693584
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Azanchi R, Kaun KR, Heberlein U. Competing dopamine neurons drive oviposition choice for ethanol in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110: 21153–21158. pmid:24324162
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Kacsoh BZ, Lynch ZR, Mortimer NT, Schlenke TA. Fruit flies medicate offspring after seeing parasites. Science 2013;339: 947–950. pmid:23430653
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Quinn WG, Sziber PP, Booker R. The Drosophila memory mutant amnesiac. Nature 1979;277: 212–214. pmid:121760
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Waddell S, Armstrong JD, Kitamoto T, Kaiser K, Quinn WG. The amnesiac gene product is expressed in two neurons in the Drosophila brain that are critical for memory. Cell 2000;103: 805–813. pmid:11114336
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. DeZazzo J, Xia S, Christensen J, Velinzon K, Tully T. Developmental expression of an amn⁺ transgene rescues the mutant memory defect of amnesiac adults. J Neurosci 1999;19: 8740–8746. pmid:10516293
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Heisenberg M. Mushroom body memoir: from maps to models. Nat Rev Neurosci 2003;4: 266–275. pmid:12671643
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. de Belle JS, Heisenberg M. Associative odor learning in Drosophila abolished by chemical ablation of mushroom bodies. Science 1994;263: 692–695. pmid:8303280
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] PubMed/NCBI

[36] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Connolly JB, Roberts IJ, Armstrong JD, Kaiser K, Forte M, Tully T, et al. Associative learning disrupted by impaired Gs signaling in Drosophila mushroom bodies. Science 1996;274: 2104–2107. pmid:8953046
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] PubMed/NCBI

[40] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Dubnau J, Grady L, Kitamoto T, Tully T. Disruption of neurotransmission in Drosophila mushroom body blocks retrieval but not acquisition of memory. Nature 2001;411: 476–480. pmid:11373680
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] PubMed/NCBI

[44] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. McGuire SE, Le PT, Davis RL. The role of Drosophila mushroom body signaling in olfactory memory. Science 2001;293: 1330–1333. pmid:11397912
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] PubMed/NCBI

[48] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Krashes MJ, Keene AC, Leung B, Armstrong JD, Waddell S. Sequential use of mushroom body neuron subsets during Drosophila odor memory processing. Neuron 2007;53: 103–115. pmid:17196534
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] PubMed/NCBI

[52] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Wu CL, Chiang AS. Genes and circuits for olfactory-associated long-term memory in Drosophila. J Neurogenet 2008;22: 257–284. pmid:19012072
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] PubMed/NCBI

[56] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Joiner WJ, Crocker A, White BH, Sehgal A. Sleep in Drosophila is regulated by adult mushroom bodies. Nature 2006;441: 757–760. pmid:16760980
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Pitman JL, McGill JJ, Keegan KP, Allada R. A dynamic role for the mushroom bodies in promoting sleep in Drosophila. Nature 2006;441: 753–756. pmid:16760979
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Hong ST, Bang S, Hyun S, Kang J, Jeong K, Paik D, et al. cAMP signalling in mushroom bodies modulates temperature preference behaviour in Drosophila. Nature 2008;454: 771–775. pmid:18594510
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Bang S, Hyun S, Hong ST, Kang J, Jeong K, Park JJ, et al. Dopamine signalling in mushroom bodies regulates temperature-preference behaviour in Drosophila. PLoS Genet 2011;7: e1001346. pmid:21455291
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Wang XJ. Decision making in recurrent neuronal circuits. Neuron 2008;60: 215–234. pmid:18957215
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Sebastiao AM, Colino-Oliveira M, Assaife-Lopes N, Dias RB, Ribeiro JA. Lipid rafts, synaptic transmission and plasticity: impact in age-related neurodegenerative diseases. Neuropharmacology 2013;64: 97–107. pmid:22820274
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Tamura T, Chiang AS, Ito N, Liu HP, Horiuchi J, Tully T, et al. Aging specifically impairs amnesiac-dependent memory in Drosophila. Neuron 2003;40: 1003–1011. pmid:14659098
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Feany MB, Quinn WG. A neuropeptide gene defined by the Drosophila memory mutant amnesiac. Science 1995;268: 869–873. pmid:7754370
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Liu W, Guo F, Lu B, Guo A. amnesiac regulates sleep onset and maintenance in Drosophila melanogaster. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2008;372: 798–803. pmid:18514063
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Moore MS, DeZazzo J, Luk AY, Tully T, Singh CM, Heberlein U. Ethanol intoxication in Drosophila: Genetic and pharmacological evidence for regulation by the cAMP signaling pathway. Cell 1998;93: 997–1007. pmid:9635429
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] PubMed/NCBI

[96] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Wu CL, Shih MF, Lee PT, Chiang AS. An octopamine-mushroom body circuit modulates the formation of anesthesia-resistant memory in Drosophila. Curr Biol 2013;23: 2346–2354. pmid:24239122
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] PubMed/NCBI

[100] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Aso Y, Grubel K, Busch S, Friedrich AB, Siwanowicz I, Tanimoto H. The mushroom body of adult Drosophila characterized by GAL4 drivers. J Neurogenet 2009;23: 156–172. pmid:19140035
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] PubMed/NCBI

[104] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Bhattacharya A, Lakhman SS, Singh S. Modulation of L-type calcium channels in Drosophila via a pituitary adenylyl cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP)-mediated pathway. J Biol Chem 2004;279: 37291–37297. pmid:15201281
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Keene AC, Krashes MJ, Leung B, Bernard JA, Waddell S. Drosophila dorsal paired medial neurons provide a general mechanism for memory consolidation. Curr Biol 2006;16: 1524–1530. pmid:16890528
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Wu CL, Shih MF, Lai JS, Yang HT, Turner GC, Chen L, et al. Heterotypic gap junctions between two neurons in the Drosophila brain are critical for memory. Curr Biol 2011;21: 848–854. pmid:21530256
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Lee PT, Lin HW, Chang YH, Fu TF, Dubnau J, Hirsh J, et al. Serotonin-mushroom body circuit modulating the formation of anesthesia-resistant memory in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108: 13794–13799. pmid:21808003
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] PubMed/NCBI

[120] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Results

Aged flies exhibit normal egg-laying decisions

amn expression in two DPM neurons is essential for egg-laying decisions

Mushroom body αβ neurons are required for egg-laying decisions

Discussion

Materials and Methods

Fly strains

Whole-mount immunostaining

Confocal microscopy

Behavioral apparatus

Behavioral assay

Heat shock protocol

Statistics

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

References