4.6 Article

Courtship suppression in Drosophila melanogaster: The role of mating failure

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290048

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we evaluated courtship suppression in Drosophila melanogaster and found discrepancies between our results and previous research when using immature mobile females. We discussed the reasons for these discrepancies, defined the conditions needed for studying behavioral plasticity under natural conditions, and proposed modifications to the testing methods.
Drosophila melanogaster is a popular model organism in the study of memory due to a wide arsenal of methods used to analyze neuronal activity. The most commonly used tests in research of behavioral plasticity are shock avoidance associated with chemosensory cues and courtship suppression after mating failure. Many authors emphasize the value of courtship suppression as a model of behavior most appropriate to natural conditions. However, researchers often investigate courtship suppression using immobilized and decapitated females as targets of courtship by males, which makes the data obtained from such flies less valuable. In our study, we evaluate courtship suppression towards immature mobile non-receptive females after training with mated or immature females combined with an aversive stimulus (quinine). We have shown that the previously described mechanisms of courtship suppression, as a result of the association of the courtship object with the repellent, as well as due to increased sensitivity to the anti-aphrodisiac cVA after mating failure, are not confirmed when immature mobile females are used. We discuss the reasons for the discrepancies between our results and literature data, define the conditions to be met in the courtship suppression test if the aim is to analyze the natural forms of behavioral plasticity, and present data on the test modifications to approximate conditions to natural ones.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据