4.5 Article

The Panopticon-Assessing the Effect of Starvation on Prolonged Fly Activity and Place Preference

Journal

FRONTIERS IN BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.640146

Keywords

Drosophila; feeding; foraging; place preference; tracking

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [HU2747/1-1]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG)
  3. Universitat Leipzig

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Animal behaviors are influenced by various factors, including hunger states and previous experiences. Starvation history can lead to a long-lasting reduction in locomotion and a delayed preference for food patches.
Animal behaviours are demonstrably governed by sensory stimulation, previous experience and internal states like hunger. With increasing hunger, priorities shift towards foraging and feeding. During foraging, flies are known to employ efficient path integration strategies. However, general long-term activity patterns for both hungry and satiated flies in conditions of foraging remain to be better understood. Similarly, little is known about how permanent contact chemosensory stimulation affects locomotion. To address these questions, we have developed a novel, simplistic fly activity tracking setup-the Panopticon. Using a 3D-printed Petri dish inset, our assay allows recording of walking behaviour, of several flies in parallel, with all arena surfaces covered by a uniform substrate layer. We tested two constellations of providing food: (i) in single patches and (ii) omnipresent within the substrate layer. Fly tracking is done with FIJI, further assessment, analysis and presentation is done with a custom-built MATLAB analysis framework. We find that starvation history leads to a long-lasting reduction in locomotion, as well as a delayed place preference for food patches which seems to be not driven by immediate hunger motivation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available