Requirement of the combination of mushroom body lobe and / lobes for the retrieval of both aversive and appetitive early memories in Drosophila

Forgotten memory storage and retrieval in Drosophila

Inaccessibility of stored memory in ensemble cells through the forgetting process causes animals to be unable to respond to natural recalling cues. While accumulating evidence has demonstrated that reactivating memory-stored cells can switch cells from an inaccessible state to an accessible form and lead to recall of previously learned information, the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms remain elusive. The current study used Drosophila as a model to demonstrate that the memory of one-trial aversive olfactory conditioning, although inaccessible within a few hours after learning, is stored in KCαβ and retrievable after mild retraining. One-trial aversive conditioning triggers protein synthesis to form a long-lasting cellular memory trace, approximately 20 days, via creb in KCαβ, and a transient cellular memory trace, approximately one day, via orb in MBON-α3. PPL1-α3 negatively regulates forgotten one-trial conditioning memory retrieval. The current study demonstrated that KCαβ, PPL1-α3, and MBON-α3 collaboratively regulate the formation of forgotten one-cycle aversive conditioning memory formation and retrieval.

Integrated neural circuits of sleep and memory regulation in Drosophila

Sleep and memory are highly intertwined, yet the integrative neural network of these two fundamental physiological behaviors remains poorly understood. Multiple cell types and structures of the Drosophila brain have been shown involved in the regulation of sleep and memory, and recent efforts are focusing on bridging them at molecular and circuit levels. Here, we briefly review 1) identified neurons as key nodes of olfactory-associative memory circuits involved in different memory processes; 2) how neurons of memory circuits participate in sleep regulation; and 3) other cell types and circuits besides the mushroom body in linking sleep and memory. We also attempt to provide the remaining gaps of circuitry integration of sleep and memory, which may spark some new thinking for future efforts.

Age-related memory vulnerability to interfering stimuli is caused by gradual loss of MAPK-dependent protection in Drosophila

Age‐related memory impairment (AMI) is a common phenomenon across species. Vulnerability to interfering stimuli has been proposed to be an important cause of AMI. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying this vulnerability‐related AMI remain unknown. Here we show that learning‐activated MAPK signals are gradually lost with age, leading to vulnerability‐related AMI in Drosophila. Young flies (2‐ or 3‐day‐old) exhibited a significant increase in phosphorylated MAPK levels within 15 min after learning, whereas aged flies (25‐day‐old) did not. Compared to 3‐day‐old flies, significant 1 h memory impairments were observed in 15‐, 20‐, and 30‐day‐old flies, but not in 10‐day‐old flies. However, with post‐learning interfering stimuli such as cooling or electric stimuli, 10‐day‐old flies had worse memory performance at 1 h than 3‐day‐old flies, showing a premature AMI phenomenon. Increasing learning‐activated MAPK signals through acute transgene expression in mushroom body (MB) neurons restored physiological trace of 1 h memory in a pair of MB output neurons in aged flies. Decreasing such signals in young flies mimicked the impairment of 1 h memory trace in aged flies. Restoring learning‐activated MAPK signals in MB neurons in aged flies significantly suppressed AMI even with interfering stimuli. Thus, our data suggest that age‐related loss of learning‐activated neuronal MAPK signals causes memory vulnerability to interfering stimuli, thereby leading to AMI.

Multiple neurons encode CrebB dependent appetitive long-term memory in the mushroom body circuit

Lasting changes in gene expression are critical for the formation of long-term memories (LTMs), depending on the conserved CrebB transcriptional activator. While requirement of distinct neurons in defined circuits for different learning and memory phases have been studied in detail, only little is known regarding the gene regulatory changes that occur within these neurons. We here use the fruit fly as powerful model system to study the neural circuits of CrebB-dependent appetitive olfactory LTM. We edited the CrebB locus to create a GFP-tagged CrebB conditional knockout allele, allowing us to generate mutant, post-mitotic neurons with high spatial and temporal precision. Investigating CrebB-dependence within the mushroom body (MB) circuit we show that MB α/β and α’/β’ neurons as well as MBON α3, but not in dopaminergic neurons require CrebB for LTM. Thus, transcriptional memory traces occur in different neurons within the same neural circuit.

Our brains can store different types of memories. You may have forgotten what you had for lunch yesterday, but still be able to remember a song from your childhood. Short-term memories and long-term memories form via different mechanisms. To establish long-term memories, the brain must produce new proteins, many of which are common to all members of the animal kingdom. By studying these proteins in organisms such as fruit flies, we can learn more about their role in our own memories.

Widmer et al. used this approach to explore how a protein called CrebB helps fruit flies to remember for several days that a specific odor is associated with a sugary reward. These odor-reward memories form in a brain region called the mushroom body, which has three lobes. Input neurons supply information about the odor and the reward to the region, while output neurons pass on information to other parts of the fly brain. CrebB regulates the production of new proteins required to form these long-term odor-reward memories: but where exactly does CrebB act during this process?

Using a gene editing technique called CRISPR, Widmer et al. generated mutant flies. In these insects CrebB could be easily deactivated ‘at will’ in either the entire brain, the whole mushroom body, each of the three lobes or in specific output neurons. The flies were then trained on the odor-reward task, and their memory tested 24 hours later. The results revealed that for the memories to form, CrebB is only required in two of the three lobes of the mushroom body, and in certain output neurons. Future studies can now focus on the cells shown to need CrebB to create long-term memories, and identify the other proteins involved in this process.

In humans, defects in CrebB are associated with intellectual disability, addiction and depression. The mutant fly created by Widmer et al. could be a useful model in which to investigate how the protein may play a role in these conditions.

The Biology of Forgetting-A Perspective

Pioneering research studies, beginning with those using Drosophila, have identified several molecular and cellular mechanisms for active forgetting. The currently known mechanisms for active forgetting include neurogenesis-based forgetting, interference-based forgetting, and intrinsic forgetting, the latter term describing the brain's chronic signaling systems that function to slowly degrade molecular and cellular memory traces. The best-characterized pathway for intrinsic forgetting includes "forgetting cells" that release dopamine onto engram cells, mobilizing a signaling pathway that terminates in the activation of Rac1/Cofilin to effect changes in the actin cytoskeleton and neuron/synapse structure. Intrinsic forgetting may be the default state of the brain, constantly promoting memory erasure and competing with processes that promote memory stability like consolidation. A better understanding of active forgetting will provide insights into the brain's memory management system and human brain disorders that alter active forgetting mechanisms.

Origins of Cell-Type-Specific Olfactory Processing in the Drosophila Mushroom Body Circuit

How cell-type-specific physiological properties shape neuronal functions in a circuit remains poorly understood. We addressed this issue in the Drosophila mushroom body (MB), a higher olfactory circuit, where neurons belonging to distinct glomeruli in the antennal lobe feed excitation to three types of intrinsic neurons, α/β, α'/β', and γ Kenyon cells (KCs). Two-photon optogenetics and intracellular recording revealed that whereas glomerular inputs add similarly in all KCs, spikes were generated most readily in α'/β' KCs. This cell type was also the most competent in recruiting GABAergic inhibition fed back by anterior paired lateral neuron, which responded to odors either locally within a lobe or globally across all lobes depending on the strength of stimuli. Notably, as predicted from these physiological properties, α'/β' KCs had the highest odor detection speed, sensitivity, and discriminability. This enhanced discrimination required proper GABAergic inhibition. These results link cell-type-specific mechanisms and functions in the MB circuit.

Aversive learning of odor-heat associations in ants

Ants have recently emerged as useful models for the study of olfactory learning. In this framework, the development of a protocol for the appetitive conditioning of the maxilla-labium extension response (MaLER) provided the possibility of studying Pavlovian odor-food learning in a controlled environment. Here we extend these studies by introducing the first Pavlovian aversive learning protocol for harnessed ants in the laboratory. We worked with carpenter ants Camponotus aethiops and first determined the capacity of different temperatures applied to the body surface to elicit the typical aversive mandible opening response (MOR). We determined that 75°C is the optimal temperature to induce MOR and chose the hind legs as the stimulated body region due to their high sensitivity. We then studied the ability of ants to learn and remember odor-heat associations using 75°C as unconditioned stimulus. We studied learning and short-term retention after absolute (one odor paired with heat) and differential conditioning (a punished odor versus an unpunished odor). Our results show that ants successfully learn the odor-heat association under a differential-conditioning regime and thus exhibit conditioned MOR to the punished odor. Yet, their performance under an absolute-conditioning regime is poor. These results demonstrate that ants are capable of aversive learning and confirm previous findings about the different attentional resources solicited by differential and absolute conditioning in general.

Additive Expression of Consolidated Memory through Drosophila Mushroom Body Subsets

Associative olfactory memory in Drosophila has two components called labile anesthesia-sensitive memory and consolidated anesthesia-resistant memory (ARM). Mushroom body (MB) is a brain region critical for the olfactory memory and comprised of 2000 neurons that can be classified into αβ, α′β′, and γ neurons. Previously we demonstrated that two parallel pathways mediated ARM consolidation: the serotonergic dorsal paired medial (DPM)–αβ neurons and the octopaminergic anterior paired lateral (APL)–α′β′ neurons. This finding prompted us to ask how this composite ARM is retrieved. Here, we showed that blocking the output of αβ neurons and that of α′β′ neurons each impaired ARM retrieval, and blocking both simultaneously had an additive effect. Knockdown of radish and octβ2R in αβ and α′β′ neurons, respectively, impaired ARM. A combinatorial assay of radish mutant background rsh¹ and neurotransmission blockade confirmed that ARM retrieved from α′β′ neuron output is independent of radish. We identified MBON-β2β′2a and MBON-β′2mp as the MB output neurons downstream of αβ and α′β′ neurons, respectively, whose glutamatergic transmissions also additively contribute to ARM retrieval. Finally, we showed that α′β′ neurons could be functionally subdivided into α′β′m neurons required for ARM retrieval, and α′β′ap neurons required for ARM consolidation. Our work demonstrated that two parallel neural pathways mediating ARM consolidation in Drosophila MB additively contribute to ARM expression during retrieval.

One of tantalizing questions in neuroscience is how the brain processes memory. Studies in animal models such as fruit fly have brought innovations addressing the general principles underlying memory processing such as acquisition, consolidation, and retrieval. Here, we revealed an additive expression of aversive consolidated memory through fly mushroom body (MB) subsets. By thermogenetic blockade of neurotransmission, we identified the necessity of MB αβ and α′β′ neurons, and their respective downstream neurons, for consolidated memory retrieval. We also showed that MB αβ and α′β′ neurons harbor distinct signaling pathways for memory consolidation by genetic manipulation. Notably, the combinatorial assays of neurotransmission blockade and genetic manipulations confirmed the independency between the two sets of double-layered parallel circuits. Our work, together with previous finding of two respective modulatory neurons upstream of αβ and α′β′ neurons, favor the notion that memory is consolidated in different brain regions/circuits in parallel and later additively retrieved for behavioral outcome.

Reward signal in a recurrent circuit drives appetitive long-term memory formation

Dopamine signals reward in animal brains. A single presentation of a sugar reward to Drosophila activates distinct subsets of dopamine neurons that independently induce short- and long-term olfactory memories (STM and LTM, respectively). In this study, we show that a recurrent reward circuit underlies the formation and consolidation of LTM. This feedback circuit is composed of a single class of reward-signaling dopamine neurons (PAM-α1) projecting to a restricted region of the mushroom body (MB), and a specific MB output cell type, MBON-α1, whose dendrites arborize that same MB compartment. Both MBON-α1 and PAM-α1 neurons are required during the acquisition and consolidation of appetitive LTM. MBON-α1 additionally mediates the retrieval of LTM, which is dependent on the dopamine receptor signaling in the MB α/β neurons. Our results suggest that a reward signal transforms a nascent memory trace into a stable LTM using a feedback circuit at the cost of memory specificity.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10719.001

An animal that finds particularly nutritious and palatable food will often develop a long-lasting memory—even if they experience that event only once.

One example of this is the ability of the fruit fly Drosophila to form a long-term association between a sugar reward and a specific odor that was present when they received the reward. The consumption of sugar triggers the release of a chemical called dopamine on specific compartments of a brain structure called the mushroom body. Dopamine then acts to modify the connection between cells called “Kenyon cells”, which encode specific odors, and the neurons that send signals out from the mushroom body (called MBONs). The result is the formation of a memory that links the odor with the reward.

However, little is known about how this process differs for long-term vs. short-term memories, and how it can occur when the fly has experienced the odor and reward together on only a single occasion. To find out, Ichinose et al. combined behavioral testing of fruit flies with genetics. The results confirmed that the dopamine neurons and the MBONs that project to a single compartment of the mushroom body, called α1, are both required for the formation of long-term odor-reward memories, but not their short-term equivalents. These neurons are called PAM-α1 and MBON-α1, respectively.

Unexpectedly, anatomical data revealed that PAM-α1 dopamine neurons receive input from MBON-α1; that is, long-term memory formation involves a feedback circuit: from PAM-α1 to Kenyon cells, then to MBON-α1 and back to PAM-α1. Blocking feedback from the MBON-α1 onto the PAM-α1 neurons shortly after odor-reward training disrupted long-term memory formation. Conversely, blocking feedback at a later stage did not. This suggests that prolonged activation of PAM-α1 by MBON-α1 helps to strengthen newly established memories, converting them into memories that will last for a long time.

The discovery of a specific circuit that supports long-term, but not short-term, memory formation in fruit flies is consistent with evidence of distinct mechanisms underlying these processes in mammals. Further work is now required to determine whether feedback circuits similar to those in fruit flies also contribute to reward-based learning in other animals.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10719.002

Two independent mushroom body output circuits retrieve the six discrete components of Drosophila aversive memory

Understanding how the various memory components are encoded and how they interact to guide behavior requires knowledge of the underlying neural circuits. Currently, aversive olfactory memory in Drosophila is behaviorally subdivided into four discrete phases. Among these, short- and long-term memories rely, respectively, on the γ and α/β Kenyon cells (KCs), two distinct subsets of the ∼2,000 neurons in the mushroom body (MB). Whereas V2 efferent neurons retrieve memory from α/β KCs, the neurons that retrieve short-term memory are unknown. We identified a specific pair of MB efferent neurons, named M6, that retrieve memory from γ KCs. Moreover, our network analysis revealed that six discrete memory phases actually exist, three of which have been conflated in the past. At each time point, two distinct memory components separately recruit either V2 or M6 output pathways. Memory retrieval thus features a dramatic convergence from KCs to MB efferent neurons.

Activity of defined mushroom body output neurons underlies learned olfactory behavior in Drosophila

During olfactory learning in fruit flies, dopaminergic neurons assign value to odor representations in the mushroom body Kenyon cells. Here we identify a class of downstream glutamatergic mushroom body output neurons (MBONs) called M4/6, or MBON-β2β′2a, MBON-β′2mp, and MBON-γ5β′2a, whose dendritic fields overlap with dopaminergic neuron projections in the tips of the β, β′, and γ lobes. This anatomy and their odor tuning suggests that M4/6 neurons pool odor-driven Kenyon cell synaptic outputs. Like that of mushroom body neurons, M4/6 output is required for expression of appetitive and aversive memory performance. Moreover, appetitive and aversive olfactory conditioning bidirectionally alters the relative odor-drive of M4β′ neurons (MBON-β′2mp). Direct block of M4/6 neurons in naive flies mimics appetitive conditioning, being sufficient to convert odor-driven avoidance into approach, while optogenetically activating these neurons induces avoidance behavior. We therefore propose that drive to the M4/6 neurons reflects odor-directed behavioral choice.

•

Glutamatergic mushroom body output neurons are required for memory expression

•

Training bidirectionally alters relative odor drive to output neurons

•

Blocking glutamatergic mushroom body output neurons mimics appetitive conditioning

•

Optogenetic activation drives avoidance behavior

Distinct dopamine neurons mediate reward signals for short- and long-term memories

Drosophila melanogaster can acquire a stable appetitive olfactory memory when the presentation of a sugar reward and an odor are paired. However, the neuronal mechanisms by which a single training induces long-term memory are poorly understood. Here we show that two distinct subsets of dopamine neurons in the fly brain signal reward for short-term (STM) and long-term memories (LTM). One subset induces memory that decays within several hours, whereas the other induces memory that gradually develops after training. They convey reward signals to spatially segregated synaptic domains of the mushroom body (MB), a potential site for convergence. Furthermore, we identified a single type of dopamine neuron that conveys the reward signal to restricted subdomains of the mushroom body lobes and induces long-term memory. Constant appetitive memory retention after a single training session thus comprises two memory components triggered by distinct dopamine neurons.

Functional neuroanatomy of Drosophila olfactory memory formation

New approaches, techniques and tools invented over the last decade and a half have revolutionized the functional dissection of neural circuitry underlying Drosophila learning. The new methodologies have been used aggressively by researchers attempting to answer three critical questions about olfactory memories formed with appetitive and aversive reinforcers: (1) Which neurons within the olfactory nervous system mediate the acquisition of memory? (2) What is the complete neural circuitry extending from the site(s) of acquisition to the site(s) controlling memory expression? (3) How is information processed across this circuit to consolidate early-forming, disruptable memories to stable, late memories? Much progress has been made and a few strong conclusions have emerged: (1) Acquisition occurs at multiple sites within the olfactory nervous system but is mediated predominantly by the γ mushroom body neurons. (2) The expression of long-term memory is completely dependent on the synaptic output of α/β mushroom body neurons. (3) Consolidation occurs, in part, through circuit interactions between mushroom body and dorsal paired medial neurons. Despite this progress, a complete and unified model that details the pathway from acquisition to memory expression remains elusive.

Shared mushroom body circuits underlie visual and olfactory memories in Drosophila

In nature, animals form memories associating reward or punishment with stimuli from different sensory modalities, such as smells and colors. It is unclear, however, how distinct sensory memories are processed in the brain. We established appetitive and aversive visual learning assays for Drosophila that are comparable to the widely used olfactory learning assays. These assays share critical features, such as reinforcing stimuli (sugar reward and electric shock punishment), and allow direct comparison of the cellular requirements for visual and olfactory memories. We found that the same subsets of dopamine neurons drive formation of both sensory memories. Furthermore, distinct yet partially overlapping subsets of mushroom body intrinsic neurons are required for visual and olfactory memories. Thus, our results suggest that distinct sensory memories are processed in a common brain center. Such centralization of related brain functions is an economical design that avoids the repetition of similar circuit motifs.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02395.001

Animals tend to associate good and bad things with certain visual scenes, smells and other kinds of sensory information. If we get food poisoning after eating a new food, for example, we tend to associate the taste and smell of the new food with feelings of illness. This is an example of a negative ‘associative memory’, and it can persist for months, even when we know that our sickness was not caused by the new food itself but by some foreign body that should not have been in the food. The same is true for positive associative memories.

It is known that many associative memories contain information from more than one of the senses. Our memory of a favorite food, for instance, includes its scent, color and texture, as well as its taste. However, little is known about the ways in which information from the different senses is processed in the brain. Does each sense have its own dedicated memory circuit, or do multiple senses converge to the same memory circuit?

A number of studies have used olfactory (smell) and visual stimuli to study the basic neuroscience that underpins associative memories in fruit flies. The olfactory experiments traditionally use sugar and electric shocks to induce positive and negative associations with various scents. However, the visual experiments use other methods to induce associations with colors. This means that it is difficult to combine and compare the results of olfactory and visual experiments.

Now, Vogt, Schnaitmann et al. have developed a transparent grid that can be used to administer electric shocks in visual experiments. This allows direct comparisons to be made between the neuronal processing of visual associative memories and the neural processing of olfactory associative memories.

Vogt, Schnaitmann et al. showed that both visual and olfactory stimuli are modulated in the same subset of dopamine neurons for positive associative memories. Similarly, another subset of dopamine neurons was found to drive negative memories of both the visual and olfactory stimuli. The work of Vogt, Schnaitmann et al. shows that associative memories are processed by a centralized circuit that receives both visual and olfactory inputs, thus reducing the number of memory circuits needed for such memories.

DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02395.002

Habituation, sensitization, and Pavlovian conditioning

In this brief review, I argue that the impact of a stimulus on behavioral control increase as the distance of the stimulus to the body decreases. Habituation, i.e., decrement in response intensity repetition of the triggering stimulus, is the default state for sensory processing, and the likelihood of habituation is higher for distal stimuli. Sensitization, i.e., increment in response intensity upon stimulus repetition, occurs in a state dependent manner for proximal stimuli that make direct contact with the body. In Pavlovian conditioning paradigms, the unconditioned stimulus (US) is always a more proximal stimulus than the conditioned stimulus (CS). The mechanisms of associative and non-associative learning are not independent. CS-US pairings lead to formation of associations if sensitizing modulation from a proximal US prevents the habituation for a distal anticipatory CS.

Active forgetting of olfactory memories in Drosophila

Failure to remember, or forgetting, is a phenomenon familiar to everyone and despite more than a century of scientific inquiry, why we forget what we once knew remains unclear. If the brain marshals significant resources to form and store memories, why is it that these memories become lost? In the last century, psychological studies have divided forgetting into decay theory, in which memory simply dissipates with time, and interference theory, in which additional learning or mental activity hinders memory by reducing its stability or retrieval (for review, Dewar et al., 2007; Wixted, 2004). Importantly, these psychological models of forgetting posit that forgetting is a passive property of the brain and thus a failure of the brain to retain memories. However, recent neuroscience research on olfactory memory in Drosophila has offered evidence for an alternative conclusion that forgetting is an "active" process, with specific, biologically regulated mechanisms that remove existing memories (Berry et al., 2012; Shuai et al., 2010). Similar to the bidirectional regulation of cell number by mitosis and apoptosis, protein concentration by translation and lysosomal or proteomal degradation, and protein phosphate modification by kinases and phosphatases, biologically regulated memory formation and removal would be yet another example in biological systems where distinct and separate pathways regulate the creation and destruction of biological substrates.