Search

Larval Drosophila are used as a genetically accessible study case in many areas of biological research. Here we report a fast, robust and user-friendly procedure for the whole-body multifluorescence imaging of Drosophila larvae; the protocol has been optimized specifically for larvae by systematically tackling the pitfalls associated with clearing this small but cuticularized organism. Tests on various fluorescent proteins reveal that the recently introduced monomeric infrared fluorescent protein (mIFP) is particularly suitable for our approach. This approach comprises an effective, low-cost clearing protocol with minimal handling time and reduced toxicity in the reagents employed. It combines a success rate high enough to allow for small-scale screening approaches and a resolution sufficient for cellular-resolution analyses with light sheet and confocal microscopy. Given that publications and database documentations typically specify expression patterns of transgenic driver lines only within a given organ system of interest, the present procedure should be versatile enough to extend such documentation systematically to the whole body. As examples, the expression patterns of transgenic driver lines covering the majority of neurons, or subsets of chemosensory, central brain or motor neurons, are documented in the context of whole larval body volumes (using nsyb-Gal4, IR76b-Gal4, APL-Gal4 and mushroom body Kenyon cells, or OK371-Gal4, respectively). Notably, the presented protocol allows for triple-color fluorescence imaging with near-infrared, red and yellow fluorescent proteins.

This special issue is dedicated to ‘Future Perspectives of Neurogenetics’ in honor of Troy D. Zars (1967–2018). It is intended to offer insight and inspiration for our understanding of how adaptive...

Troy D. Zars (1967–2018) was an American biologist. He studied the relationships between genes, neuronal circuits and behavior in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Zars co-pioneered the use of...

An experience with electric shock can support two opposing kinds of behavioral effects: Stimuli that precede shock during training are subsequently avoided as predictors for punishment, whereas stimuli that follow shock during training are later on approached, as they predict relief. We show here, for the fruit fly Drosophila, that upon the loss of white-function, the balance between these two kinds of learning is distorted in favor of punishment learning: white1118 mutants show stronger punishment learning and weaker relief learning, as compared to wild type flies. Thus, white1118 mutants establish, overall, more "negative" memories for the shock experience. This only concerns the mnemonic effects of the shock; the immediate, reflexive responsiveness to shock remains unaltered. Also, learning about reward is apparently unaffected, both in adult and larval Drosophila. Prompted by the proposed function of the White protein as the transporter for biogenic amine precursors, we probed the brains of white1118 mutants for the amounts of biogenic amines (octopamine, tyramine, dopamine, and serotonin) by using high-pressure liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. Using this method, we found, however, no difference between white1118 and wild type files for any of the probed amines. In any event, analyses of how the white1118 mutation affects the balance between punishment and relief learning should provide a study case of how heritable distortions of such balance can come about. Finally, the effects of the white1118 mutation should be considered as a source of confound when using white as the "marker gene" in behavior-genetic analyses of any sort.

Learnt predictive behavior faces a dilemma: predictive stimuli will never 'replay' exactly as during the learning event, requiring generalization. In turn, minute differences can become meaningful, prompting discrimination. To provide a study case for an adaptive adjustment of this generalization-discrimination balance, the authors ask whether Drosophila melanogaster larvae are able to either generalize or discriminate between two odors (1-octen-3-ol and 3-octanol), depending on the task. The authors find that after discriminatively rewarding one but not the other odor, larvae show conditioned preference for the rewarded odor. On the other hand, no odor specificity is observed after nondiscriminative training, even if the test involves a choice between both odors. Thus, for this odor pair at least, discrimination training is required to confer an odor-specific memory trace. This requires that there is at least some difference in processing between the two odors already at the beginning of the training. Therefore, as a default, there is a small yet salient difference in processing between 1-octen-3-ol and 3-octanol; this difference is ignored after nondiscriminative training (generalization), whereas it is accentuated by odor-specific reinforcement (discrimination). Given that, as the authors show, both faculties are lost in anosmic Or83b(1) mutants, this indicates an adaptive adjustment of the generalization-discrimination balance in larval Drosophila, taking place downstream of Or83b-expressing sensory neurons.