Seasonal regulation of singing-driven gene expression associated with song plasticity in the canary, an open-ended vocal learner

Songbirds are one of the few animal taxa that possess vocal learning abilities. Different species of songbirds exhibit species-specific learning programs during song acquisition. Songbirds with open-ended vocal learning capacity, such as the canary, modify their songs during adulthood. Nevertheless, the neural molecular mechanisms underlying open-ended vocal learning are not fully understood. We investigated the singing-driven expression of neural activity-dependent genes (Arc, Egr1, c-fos, Nr4a1, Sik1, Dusp6, and Gadd45β) in the canary to examine a potential relationship between the gene expression level and the degree of seasonal vocal plasticity at different ages. The expression of these genes was differently regulated throughout the critical period of vocal learning in the zebra finch, a closed-ended song learner. In the canary, the neural activity-dependent genes were induced by singing in the song nuclei throughout the year. However, in the vocal motor nucleus, the robust nucleus of the arcopallium (RA), all genes were regulated with a higher induction rate by singing in the fall than in the spring. The singing-driven expression of these genes showed a similar induction rate in the fall between the first year juvenile and the second year adult canaries, suggesting a seasonal, not age-dependent, regulation of the neural activity-dependent genes. By measuring seasonal vocal plasticity and singing-driven gene expression, we found that in RA, the induction intensity of the neural activity-dependent genes was correlated with the state of vocal plasticity. These results demonstrate a correlation between vocal plasticity and the singing-driven expression of neural activity-dependent genes in RA through song development, regardless of whether a songbird species possesses an open- or closed-ended vocal learning capacity.

Appetitive reversal learning differences of two honey bee subspecies with different foraging behaviors

We aimed to examine mechanistically the observed foraging differences across two honey bee, Apis mellifera, subspecies using the proboscis extension response assay. Specifically, we compared differences in appetitive reversal learning ability between honey bee subspecies: Apis mellifera caucasica (Pollman), and Apis mellifera syriaca (Skorikov) in a "common garden" apiary. It was hypothesized that specific learning differences could explain previously observed foraging behavior differences of these subspecies: A.m. caucasica switches between different flower color morphs in response to reward variability, and A.m. syriaca does not switch. We suggest that flower constancy allows reduced exposure by minimizing search and handling time, whereas plasticity is important when maximizing harvest in preparation for long winter is at a premium. In the initial or Acquisition phase of the test we examined specifically discrimination learning, where bees were trained to respond to a paired conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus and not to respond to a second conditioned stimulus that is not followed by an unconditioned stimulus. We found no significant differences among the subspecies in the Acquisition phase in appetitive learning. During the second, Reversal phase of the experiment, where flexibility in association was tested, the paired and unpaired conditioned stimuli were reversed. During the Reversal phase A.m. syriaca showed a reduced ability to learn the reverse association in the appetitive learning task. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that A.m. syriaca foragers cannot change the foraging choice because of lack of flexibility in appetitive associations under changing contingencies. Interestingly, both subspecies continued responding to the previously rewarded conditioned stimulus in the reversal phase. We discuss potential ecological correlates and molecular underpinnings of these differences in learning across the two subspecies. In addition, in a supplemental experiment we demonstrated that these differences in appetitive reversal learning do not occur in other learning contexts.