4.5 Article

Behavioral analyses of sugar processing in choice, feeding, and learning in larval Drosophila

Journal

CHEMICAL SENSES
Volume 33, Issue 6, Pages 563-573

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjn024

Keywords

Drosophila; feeding; gustation; learning; olfaction; sugar

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gustatory stimuli have at least 2 kinds of function: They can support immediate, reflexive responses (such as substrate choice and feeding) and they can drive internal reinforcement. We provide behavioral analyses of these functions with respect to sweet taste in larval Drosophila. The idea is to use the dose-effect characteristics as behavioral fingerprints to dissociate reflexive and reinforcing functions. For glucose and trehalose, we uncover relatively weak preference. In contrast, for fructose and sucrose, preference responses are strong and the effects on feeding pronounced. Specifically, larvae are attracted to, and feeding is stimulated most strongly for, intermediate concentrations of either sugar: Using very high concentrations (4 M) results in weakened preference and suppression of feeding. In contrast to such an optimum function regarding choice and feeding, an asymptotic dose-effect function is found for reinforcement learning: Learning scores reach asymptote at 2 M and remain stable for a 4-M concentration. A similar parametric discrepancy between the reflexive (choice and feeding) and reinforcing function is also seen for sodium chloride (Niewalda T, Singhal S, Fiala A, Saumweber T, Wegener S, Gerber B, in preparation). We discuss whether these discrepancies are based either on inhibition from high-osmolarity sensors upon specifically the reflexive pathways or whether different sensory pathways, with different effective dose-response characteristics, may have preferential access to drive either reflex responses or modulatory neurons mediating internal reinforcement, respectively.

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