Aversive bimodal associations impact visual and olfactory memory performance in Drosophila
Preprint posted on 23 July 2022 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.23.501229v1
Article now published in iScience at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105485
If seeing is believing, then seeing and smelling is learning: memory in Drosophila with bimodal cues.Selected by T. W. Schwanitz
Updated 21 February 2023 with a postLight by Timothy W. Schwanitz
The preprint discussed here was recently published in iScience. It was a good article already in its preprint form, and so no major changes were necessary for publication. The new graphical abstract is one of the nicest additions to the publication, especially since it manages to boil down the complexity of the results into a relatively simple graphic. Some of the nuance and subtlety is preserved even in the simplified graphic, e.g., the preference wheels in the graphical abstract indicate partial preference in a way that is roughly proportional to the actual data. One cool result from the study that sadly did not make it into the abstract: the differences in the interactions between two senses in long-term bimodal memory vs short-term bimodal memory. Readers will have to dig deeper than the graphical abstract to learn about those interesting findings.
No new figures were added, though Figure 1 got split into two, and two panels were added to now Figure 2 to further clarify training paradigms. Some of the biggest changes to the paper were in the discussion, which now does an even better job of situating the broader impact of the findings (I smiled to see that the phrase “more the merrier” from my preLight made it into the discussion). The discussion of the final published paper is clearer and helps the reader better understand what is surprising in this study. The addition of a study limitations section also assists the reader in interpreting the results.
Think of a memorable place you have lived. Do you recall sights, sounds, smells, or maybe even textures and flavors? Memory often involves the complex integration of several senses. Many studies of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster have investigated their impressive olfactory learning abilities, or they have studied the fly’s visual system via color learning; however, not as many studies have looked at combinations of sensory inputs. When studied in isolation, fruit flies have often fared poorly in learning trials using color alone as a training cue (relative to their olfactory abilities, that is).
Thiagarajan and colleagues therefore investigated two sensory modalities, vision and olfaction, and their joint influence on learning. The researchers used a T-maze with four different stimuli: two food odors, acetoin and ethyl butyrate, as well as two different wavelengths of light, green and blue. The authors optimized the odor concentrations such that neither odor was inherently more attractive to the flies, and they did the same with light intensities. Flies were trained using the aversive stimulus of an electric shock in a training tube separate from the maze. The scientists used several different learning paradigms, all assessing how effectively the flies can recall the aversive association with either an odor or light stimulus—as measured by how many flies avoid the part of the T-maze with the aversive stimulus (see Fig. 1B of the preprint).
Fig. 1B. A schematic of the training tube that was used prior to the T-maze. Flies were exposed to an odor, a color of light, or a combination of both, while also being given an electric shock for one minute per round of training.
Flies are good at learning olfactory associations—but they are not as good at learning visual associations. The authors found no difference in avoidance between flies conditioned on an aversive olfactory stimulus in just one trial or in four trials. By contrast, a single learning trial was not sufficient to get a robust avoidance of the color of light associated with an aversive stimulus. After four learning trials, however, the flies did avoid the color of light associated with an aversive stimulus.
Having come to these conclusions, the researchers then did a series of tests where both an olfactory and a visual cue were used during the learning trials.
Olfactory cues improve visual memory; however, visual cues do not improve olfactory memory. If flies were trained on both an olfactory and a visual cue, but were then tested only on the visual cue, they performed better than if they were trained exclusively on visual cues; hence, olfactory cues augment visual memory. Nevertheless, flies trained on both cues but only tested on olfactory cues did just as well as flies trained only on olfactory cues. It appears that olfactory memories are already so strong that they cannot be enhanced by visual cues.
After these findings, the authors created a more complex learning environment where the flies were trained bimodally on all possible color and odor combinations. For example, acetoin and blue were presented together with an electric shock as the conditioned aversive stimulus, while ethyl butyrate and green were presented without a shock. The flies were then tested on only the visual or the olfactory cues.
Visual memory is improved by the addition of olfactory learning cues. In congruence with the previous experiments, flies that were trained with odors as well as colors learned to associate colors alone with a negative stimulus, while flies that only had colors did not form a significant visual memory. These results were confirmed by also using transgenic flies (i.e. olfactory mutants) that could not detect the odors used in the trial. Transgenic flies performed like flies that were trained only on colors, underscoring that visual memory formation is not very strong unless augmented by olfactory inputs.
Olfactory memory can be diminished by the addition of visual learning cues. Strikingly, though, flies that were trained on both colors and odors, and then tested only on odors, did not perform as well as flies that were only trained on odors. Adding a weak visual memory stimulus can actually reduce the strength of the olfactory memory.
The above results were all looking at short-term memory effects. As a final flourish to their study, Thiagarajan and colleagues added long-term versus short-term memory.
Long-term olfactory memory was improved by the presence of visual cues. In contrast to their short-term memory focused findings, adding a visual cue to olfactory learning improved long-term memory: more flies avoided the aversive stimulus. This result is especially interesting given that the flies had no detectable visual long-term memory, i.e., just using a visual stimulus after bimodal training did not result in significant levels of avoidance.
Why I think this study is important:
Memory is a complex process that involves time and many senses, so integrating multiple senses into experimental designs is an important step toward gaining a better understanding of how memory actually functions. The results in this preprint are especially fascinating because they show how memory is not a simple case of “the more the merrier.” Sometimes additional senses improve memory, as when the authors augmented visual cues with olfactory cues and then tested the flies in the short-term, or when the authors added visual cues to olfactory cues and tested the flies in the long-term. Other experiments in this study, however, showed that additional sensory cues weaken memory associations, as when the researchers added visual cues to olfactory cues and tested the flies in the short-term.
These complex results underscore the importance of testing assumptions like the idea that more sensory modalities always translate to better memory skills, or that findings at one temporal scale will hold true for all temporal scales.
Posted on: 9 August 2022 , updated on: 21 February 2023
doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/prelights.32464Read preprint
Also in the animal behavior and cognition category:
Restructuring of an asymmetric neural circuit during associative learning
Olfactory chemosensation extends lifespan through TGF-β signaling and UPR activation
Lateral Line Ablation by Ototoxic Compounds Results in Distinct Rheotaxis Profiles in Larval Zebrafish
Also in the neuroscience category:
Small leucine-rich proteoglycans inhibit CNS regeneration by modifying the structural and mechanical properties of the lesion environment
Functional synapses between small cell lung cancer and glutamatergic neurons
preListsanimal behavior and cognition category:in the
Also in the neuroscience category:
ASCB EMBO Annual Meeting 2019
A collection of preprints presented at the 2019 ASCB EMBO Meeting in Washington, DC (December 7-11)
|List by||Madhuja Samaddar et al.|
SDB 78th Annual Meeting 2019
A curation of the preprints presented at the SDB meeting in Boston, July 26-30 2019. The preList will be updated throughout the duration of the meeting.
|List by||Alex Eve|
Preprints on autophagy and lysosomal degradation and its role in neurodegeneration and disease. Includes molecular mechanisms, upstream signalling and regulation as well as studies on pharmaceutical interventions to upregulate the process.
|List by||Sandra Malmgren Hill|
Young Embryologist Network Conference 2019
Preprints presented at the Young Embryologist Network 2019 conference, 13 May, The Francis Crick Institute, London
|List by||Alex Eve|