Animals detect food primarily through taste and olfactory systems. Across phyla, there is enormous complexity in olfactory receptors and downstream processing mechanisms that allow for detection and differentiation between odorants (Keller et al., 2017; Nara et al., 2011; Parnas et al., 2013). By contrast, taste coding is thought to be simpler, with most animals possessing fewer taste receptors and a diminished ability to differentiate between tastants (Freeman and Dahanukar, 2015; Scott, 2018; Yarmolinsky et al., 2009). Most early studies in different species have focused on characterization of a limited number of taste modalities largely defined by human percepts (sweet, bitter, sour, umami, salt), though there is growing appreciation that additional taste pathways are likely to influence gustatory responses and feeding (Chaudhari and Roper, 2010; Scott, 2018). Between studies of Drosophila and mammals, cells or receptors that are involved in sensing water, carbonation, fat, electrophiles, polyamines, metal ions, and ribonucleotides have been identified, suggesting a previously underappreciated complexity in the coding of tastants (Cameron et al., 2010; Kang et al., 2010; Mishra et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2013). Elucidating the underlying mechanisms of tastant detection can provide fundamental insight into the molecular and cellular basis of tastant recognition and taste processing.

In flies and mammals, tastants are sensed by dedicated gustatory receptors that are expressed in gustatory receptor neurons (GRNs) or taste cells, respectively. In both systems, distinct subsets of taste sensory cells are responsive to compounds belonging to distinct taste modalities such as sweet or bitter, and convey information to discrete areas of higher order brain structures (Vosshall and Stocker, 2007; Yarmolinsky et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2003). Given the conserved logic of taste processing, flies provide a powerful system for studying sensory processing and principles of taste circuit function (Freeman and Dahanukar, 2015; Scott, 2018; Yarmolinsky et al., 2009). Further, a number of genes and biochemical pathways that regulate feeding behavior are conserved across phyla (Vosshall and Stocker, 2007; Yarmolinsky et al., 2009). Notably, the gustatory system of Drosophila is amenable to in vivo Ca²⁺ imaging and electrophysiology, both of which can be coupled with robust behavioral assays that measure reflexive taste responses and food consumption (Wisotsky et al., 2011). Taste neurons are housed in gustatory sensory structures called sensilla, which are located in the distal segments of the legs (tarsi), in the external and internal mouth organs (proboscis and pharynx), and in the wings. Each sensillum contains dendrites of multiple GRNs, each of which can be distinguished from the others based on its responses to various categories of tastants. Two main classes of non-overlapping gustatory neurons that have been identified are sweet-sensing and bitter-sensing neurons. Sweet-sensing GRNs promote feeding, whereas bitter-sensing GRNs act to deter (Marella et al., 2006; Thorne et al., 2004). Both sweet and bitter GRNs express subsets of 68 G-protein-coupled gustatory receptors (GRs) (Clyne et al., 2000; Scott et al., 2001). In addition, the Drosophila genome encodes 66 glutamate-like ionotropic receptors (IRs), a recently identified family of receptors implicated in taste, olfaction, and temperature sensation (Benton et al., 2009; Rytz et al., 2013). GRNs predominantly project to the subesophageal zone (SEZ), the primary taste center, but the higher order circuitry downstream of the SEZ contributing to taste processing is poorly understood (Flood et al., 2013; Marella et al., 2012; Pool et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2004). Determining how tastants activate GRNs that convey information to the SEZ and how these signals are transmitted to higher order brain centers is central to understanding the neural basis for taste and feeding.

In Drosophila, GRNs in the labellum and tarsi detect hexanoic acid (Masek and Keene, 2013). Mutation of ionotropic receptor 56d (IR56d) disrupts hexanoic acid taste, implicating IR56d as a fatty acid receptor, or as part of a complex involved in fatty acid taste (Ahn et al., 2017; Sánchez-Alcañiz et al., 2018). IR56d is co-expressed with GR64f (Ahn et al., 2017; Tauber et al., 2017), which broadly labels sweet GRNs (Dahanukar et al., 2007; Jiao et al., 2008; Slone et al., 2007). IR56d-expressing GRNs are responsive to both sugars and fatty acids, suggesting that these neurons may respond to diverse appetitive substances including multiple classes of fatty acids (Tauber et al., 2017). Notably, overlapping populations of sweet GRNs are responsive to different appetitive modalities and confer feeding behavior.

Are flies capable of differentiating between tastants of the same modality or is discrimination within a modality exclusively dependent on intensity? Taste discrimination can be assayed by training flies by pairing a negative stimulus with an appetitive tastant and determining whether the acquired aversion generalizes to another tastant (Keene and Masek, 2012; Masek and Scott, 2010). A previous study employing such experiments found that flies are unable to discriminate between different sugars (Masek and Scott, 2010). Conversely, we reported that flies can discriminate between sucrose (sugar) and hexanoic acid (fatty acid), revealing an ability to discriminate between appetitive stimuli of different modalities (Tauber et al., 2017). Here, we find that flies are capable of discriminating between different classes of fatty acids, despite broad tuning of fatty-acid-sensitive neurons to short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids.

Sugars and medium-chain fatty acids are sensed by an overlapping population of gustatory neurons, and flies can discriminate between these two attractive tastants (Ahn et al., 2017; Tauber et al., 2017). To test whether flies are capable of discriminating within a single modality, we measured the ability of flies to discriminate between different types of fatty acids of the same concentration. We used an aversive taste memory assay in which an appetitive tastant applied to the proboscis is paired with application of bitter quinine immediately afterwards, resulting in an associative memory that inhibits responses to the appetitive tastant (Masek et al., 2015). A modified version of this assay, in which training with one tastant is followed by testing with another, allows us to determine whether flies can discriminate between these tastants (Figure 1A).

Figure 1 with 4 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 1—source data 1

Raw taste discrimination data between short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/67878/elife-67878-fig1-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-67878-fig1-data1-v2.xlsx

We first sought to determine whether flies are capable of differentiating between short- (3C–5C), medium- (6C–8C), and long-chain (>9C) fatty acids. We found that flies that were trained with pairing of quinine and medium-chain hexanoic acid (6C) exhibited proboscis extension response (PER) to subsequent application of short-chain valeric acid (5C; Figure 1B). Thus, aversive memory to 5C was not formed by training with 6C, suggesting that flies can discriminate between these short- and medium-chain fatty acids. Similarly, flies trained with 6C did not generalize aversive memory to 9C, consistent with the idea that flies can also discriminate between medium- and long-chain fatty acids (Figure 1C). To rule out the possibility that flies are unable to form aversive taste memories to short- and long-chain fatty acids, we trained with 5C and found robust aversive taste memory, which did not generalize to 9C (Figure 1D). Together, these results suggest that flies are capable of distinguishing between short-, medium-, and long-chain classes of fatty acids.

To determine whether flies can discriminate between compounds within each class of fatty acid, we tested the ability of flies to differentiate among each short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acid class. We first trained flies to associate 4C, a short-chain fatty acid, with quinine, while a second short-chain fatty acid, 5C, was not reinforced. We found that the aversive memory formed with 4C was generalized to 5C, suggesting that flies cannot discriminate between different short-chain fatty acids (Figure 1E). Next, we trained flies to associate 6C, a medium-chain fatty acid, with quinine, while the medium-chain fatty acids 7C or 8C were not reinforced. In both cases, flies formed aversive memories to 6C, and these generalized to 7C and 8C, suggesting that flies cannot discriminate between different medium chain fatty acids (Figure 1F, G). To fortify these findings, we trained flies to 7C and measured the response to 8C. Again, flies formed aversive memory to 7C that was generalized to 8C (Figure 1H). Lastly, we trained flies to associate 10C, a long-chain fatty acid, with quinine, while a second long-chain fatty acid, 9C, was not reinforced. We again found that the aversive memory formed with 10C was generalized to 9C, suggesting that flies cannot discriminate among long-chain fatty acids (Figure 1I).

To verify that taste discrimination observed between different classes of fatty acids is not simply the result of prior experience, we performed reciprocal experiments to those in Figure 1, in which the tested tastant was used during training, and the trained tastant was used to assess taste discrimination. Consistent with the findings from the first series of experiments, we found that flies are able to discriminate between short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A–C), but are unable to discriminate between fatty acids within a particular class (e.g., medium-chain fatty acids; Figure 1—figure supplement 1D–F). Further, it is possible that repeated presentation of fatty acid may alter the valence of the tastant over time. To address this, we asked whether there were any differences in PER between the pretest, training, and test applications among the naïve groups in each test of taste discrimination. We found that PER to consecutive applications of fatty acid shows no significant change in responsiveness over time, although in some cases PER to fatty acid trends downward (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Taken together, these results reveal that flies cannot discriminate among different short-, medium-, or long-chain fatty acids, although they are able to discriminate medium-chain fatty acids from short- or long-chain fatty acids.

A potential confounding factor in the taste memory assay used to assess discrimination is that flies may discriminate based on perceived intensity rather than the class identity of fatty acids. To test this possibility, we tested whether flies trained to 1% 6C could discriminate a different fatty acid tested at a different concentration (0.1%). Even under these test conditions, flies remained able to discriminate between short- (5C) and medium-chain (6C) fatty acids as well as between long- (9C) and medium-chain (6C) fatty acids (Figure 1—figure supplement 2A, B). However, conditioning to a medium-chain fatty acid (6C) generalized to another medium-chain fatty acid (8C), suggesting that despite a 10× difference in concentration, flies remain unable to distinguish between medium-chain fatty acids (Figure 1—figure supplement 2C). These results fortify the notion that flies are able to distinguish between short-, medium-, and long chain fatty acids, but not within fatty acids of the same class.

We next sought to determine whether the discrimination observed in female flies is also found in males. PER analysis with a panel of short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids revealed that males respond to all fatty acids tested, though the overall responses were generally lower than those observed in females (Figure 1—figure supplement 3). To assess whether male flies are able to discriminate between different classes of fatty acids, we trained flies to a medium-chain fatty acid (6C) and then measured discrimination between 4C (short), 8C (medium), and 9C (long) fatty acids. Similar to results obtained in female flies, males were able to discriminate between 6C and 4C as well as between 6C and 9C, but not between 6C and 8C (Figure 1—figure supplement 4). Therefore, male flies are also able to discriminate different classes of fatty acids, but are not able to distinguish fatty acids within the same class.

The short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids that we tested have distinctly different olfactory activation profiles (Hallem and Carlson, 2006), raising the possibility that flies can discriminate between these compounds using a combination of olfactory and gustatory information. To exclude the effects of olfactory input, we surgically ablated the antennae, the maxillary palps, or both structures, and measured the ability of flies to discriminate between a representative tastant from each short-, medium-, or long-chain fatty acid (Figure 2A). All test groups were able to distinguish between sucrose and hexanoic acid, confirming that the ablation itself does not generally impact taste or memory formation (Figure 2B). Further, flies trained to a medium-chain fatty acid (6C) did not generalize aversion to short- (5C) or long-chain (9C) fatty acids, regardless of the absence of one or both olfactory organs (Figure 2C, D). Taken together, our findings reveal an ability of the taste system to encode the identity of different classes of fatty acids.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2—source data 1

Raw taste discrimination data after ablation of olfactory organs.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/67878/elife-67878-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-67878-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx

In previous work, we reported that IR56d neurons are required for 6C taste (Tauber et al., 2017). The finding that flies cannot discriminate between medium-chain fatty acids raises the possibility that IR56d neurons mediate taste of medium-chain fatty acids, but not short- and long-chain fatty acids. To test this possibility, we silenced IR56d-expressing neurons using the synaptobrevin cleavage peptide tetanus toxin light chain (TNT; Sweeney et al., 1995) and measured PER to multiple classes of fatty acids, including short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids (Figure 3A). To control for any non-specific effects of TNT, we compared PER in flies with silenced IR56d-expressing neurons (IR56d-GAL4 > UAS TNT) to flies expressing the inactive variant of TNT in IR56d-expressing neurons (IR56d-GAL4 > UAS impTNT). Consistent with previous findings (Tauber et al., 2017), we observed no effect of silencing IR56d-expressing neurons on PER to sucrose (Figure 3B). Next, we measured PER to a panel of saturated fatty acids ranging from 4C (butanoic acid) to 10C (decanoic acid) in length (Figure 3C). Control flies exhibited a robust PER to all seven fatty acids, revealing that at least at a 1% concentration many diverse classes of fatty acids can trigger this behavioral response. To determine whether IR56d neurons are generally required for detection of fatty acids or selectively required for sensing hexanoic acid, we next measured PER in flies with IR56d-expressing neurons silenced. Silencing IR56d-expressing neurons significantly reduced PER to the three medium-chain fatty acids (6C, 7C, and 8C). Conversely, there was no difference in PER between control and IR56d-silenced flies in response to short-chain (4C and 5C) and long-chain (9C and 10C) fatty acids. Therefore, IR56d-expressing neurons are required for medium-chain fatty acid taste perception, but are dispensable for PER to both short- and long-chain fatty acids.

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 3—source data 1

Raw data from proboscis extension response experiments to short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/67878/elife-67878-fig3-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-67878-fig3-data1-v2.xlsx

Since IR56d is required for taste response to medium-chain, but not short- or long-chain fatty acids, it is possible that other IRs mediate this response. As a first step in identifying which additional receptor(s) may be involved, we measured PER in both IR76b and IR25a mutants to short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids as these broadly expressed receptors have been previously found to mediate taste response to medium-chain fatty acids (Ahn et al., 2017). In agreement with these findings, PERs to medium-chain fatty acids were significantly reduced for both the IR76b and IR25a mutants, while PER to sucrose was normal (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). Additionally, we found that PERs to both short- and long-chain fatty acids were also significantly reduced in both mutants, suggesting that both IR76b and IR25a are required for taste response to all three classes tested (Figure 3—figure supplement 1).

The finding that IR56d-expressing neurons are required selectively for PER to medium-chain fatty acids raises the possibility that other subsets of sweet-sensing GR64f-expressing neurons are required for PER to short- (4C, 5C) and long-chain (9C–10C) fatty acids. Alternatively, it is possible that these classes of fatty acids elicit PER through gustatory neurons that are not labeled by GR64f. To differentiate between these possibilities, we silenced GR64f-expressing neurons and measured PER to short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids. In agreement with previous findings, silencing of GR64f-expressing neurons significantly reduced PER to sucrose (10 mM) as well as to medium-chain fatty acids (Figure 3D, E). However, we found no significant differences in responses to both short- and long-chain fatty acids between GR64f-silenced (GR64f-GAL4 > UAS TNT) and control (GR64f-GAL4 > UAS impTNT) flies. Therefore, PER elicited by short- and long-chain fatty acids is conferred by neurons that express neither IR56d nor GR64f.

To directly assess whether the IR56d receptor mediates responses to medium-chain fatty acids, we used the CRISPR/Cas9 system to generate an IR56d allele in which a GAL4 element is inserted into the IR56d locus (IR56d^GAL4; Figure 4A), thereby allowing expression of UAS-transgenes under the control of the IR56d promoter. To confirm that the GAL4 knock-in element is indeed expressed in IR56d-expressing neurons, we generated flies carrying both UAS-mCD8:GFP and the IR56d^GAL4 allele (IR56d^GAL4>UAS-mCD8:GFP) and mapped the expression of GFP. Consistent with previous findings, we found GFP expression in labellar neurons that projected axons to both the taste peg and sweet taste regions of the SEZ (Figure 4B–E; Koh et al., 2014; Tauber et al., 2017). In agreement with previous findings from genetic silencing of IR56d-expressing neurons, PER to sucrose did not differ between IR56d^GAL4 and control flies (Figure 4F), suggesting that IR56d^GAL4 is dispensable for response to sucrose. To examine the role of IR56d in fatty acid taste, we measured PER to fatty acids ranging from 4C to 10C in length (Figure 4G). We found that PER to medium-chain fatty acids was disrupted in IR56d^GAL4 flies (6C–8C), whereas PER to short- (4C and 5C) and long-chain fatty acids (9C and 10C) was not affected. Although both the IR56d^GAL4 mutants and the IR56d-silenced flies have reduced response to medium-chain fatty acids, the response of the IR56d mutant flies was relatively lower, likely caused by the complete deletion of the IR56d gene. Flies that were heterozygous for the IR56d deletion (IR56d^GAL4/+) exhibited similar responses to those of control flies for all tastants measured. The observed decrease in PER to medium-chain fatty acids was rescued by transgenic expression of IR56d in the IR56d^GAL4 mutant background (IR56d^GAL4;UAS-IR56d/+), confirming that the behavioral deficit of IR56d^GAL4 flies is in fact due to loss of IR56d function. Similar results were observed in males. Although taste responses were generally lower, PER to sucrose did not differ between IR56d^GAL4 and control flies, but PER to medium-chain hexanoic acid (6C) was significantly lower (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). Therefore, IR56d appears to be selectively required for taste sensing of medium-chain fatty acids.

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 4—source data 1

Raw data from IR56d^GAL4proboscis extension response experiments.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/67878/elife-67878-fig4-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-67878-fig4-data1-v2.xlsx

In previous work, we found that IR56d-expressing neurons are responsive to both sucrose and hexanoic acid (Tauber et al., 2017). To determine whether other classes of fatty acids can also evoke activity in these neurons and whether their activity is dependent on IR56d, we measured Ca²⁺ responses to a panel of tastants. We expressed the Ca²⁺ sensor GCaMP6.0 under the control of IR56d^GAL4 and measured tastant-evoked activity in the posterior projections (Figure 5A–D, Figure 5—figure supplement 1), which emanate from labellar taste neurons and are both necessary and sufficient for taste perception to medium-chain hexanoic acid (6C; Koh et al., 2014; Tauber et al., 2017). In flies heterozygous for IR56d^GAL4, the labeled neurons were responsive to sucrose and all fatty acids tested, which ranged from 4C to 10C (Figure 5E). Thus, IR56d neurons respond to diverse appetitive stimuli. Flies with a deletion of IR56d (IR56d^GAL4; UAS-GCaMP6.0) lacked responses exclusively to medium-chain fatty acids (6C–8C), while responses to short- (4C and 5C) and long-chain fatty acids (9C and 10C) remained intact (Figure 5F). Consistent with the rescue of behavioral defects, inclusion of an IR56d rescue transgene (IR56d^GAL4; UAS-GCaMP6.0/UAS-IR56d) restored the physiological response to medium-chain fatty acids (Figure 5G). Quantification of the responses to all tastants confirmed that Ca²⁺ responses to 6C–8C fatty acids are disrupted in IR56d^GAL4 flies and restored to levels observed in control flies by expression of UAS-IR56d (Figure 5H). Overall, these results demonstrate that at both behavioral and physiological levels IR56d^GAL4 is required for taste responses to medium-chain fatty acids.

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 5—source data 1

Raw imaging data from the posterior labellar region in IR56d^GAL4 flies.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/67878/elife-67878-fig5-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-67878-fig5-data1-v2.xlsx

The neurons expressing IR56d project to two distinct regions within the SEZ: a posterior set of projections that overlap with GR64f-expressing neurons and a set of anterior projections that originate from the taste pegs (Koh et al., 2014; Tauber et al., 2017). The two populations appear to differ in function as the posterior population is responsive to both sucrose and hexanoic acid, while the anterior population is responsive to hexanoic acid, but not sucrose (Tauber et al., 2017). It is possible that the anterior neurons are selectively responsive to medium-chain fatty acids, providing a mechanism for taste discrimination. We generated flies labeling IR56d- and GR64f-expressing neurons with different genetically encoded fluorescent reporters (IR56d^GAL4; UAS-RFP; GR64f-LexA > LexAop GFP) and confirmed that IR56d^GAL4 labels both the anterior and posterior projections (Figure 6A–C). To selectively measure fatty acid responses in anterior taste peg neurons, we expressed UAS-GCaMP6 with a genetic intersection strategy (IR56d^GAL4/+; UAS-GCaMP6; GR64f-LexA > LexAop-GAL80) and measured activity to a panel of tastants. In agreement with our previous findings, these neurons were robustly responsive to hexanoic acid (6C), but not by sucrose (Figure 6D–F; Tauber et al., 2017). These neurons also responded to other classes of fatty acids including short- (4C and 5C), medium- (7C and 8C) and long-chain (9C and 10C) (Figure 6D–F). Unlike the posterior projections, which respond similarly to all three classes of fatty acids, the response to short-chain fatty acids was lower in the anterior population. Therefore, it is possible that differential response between the anterior and posterior populations provides a mechanism of discrimination between different classes of fatty acids. However, this alone is insufficient to fully explain discrimination between medium- and long-chain fatty acids. Taken together, these findings support the notion that medium-chain fatty acids are detected through a shared sensory channel, allowing flies to distinguish medium-chain from short- or long-chain, but not between different medium-chain fatty acids.

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

Figure 6—source data 1

Raw imaging data from the anterior, non-GR64f-IR56d-expressing region in IR56d^GAL4 flies.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/67878/elife-67878-fig6-data1-v2.xlsx

Download elife-67878-fig6-data1-v2.xlsx

Receptors for sweet and bitter taste have been well defined in both flies and mammals (Carleton et al., 2010; Hallem et al., 2006; Scott, 2018), but less is known about detection of fats. Previous studies identified IR56d as a receptor for hexanoic acid and carbonation (Ahn et al., 2017; Sánchez-Alcañiz et al., 2018). Our findings suggest that IR56d is selectively involved in responses to medium-chain fatty acids, including 6C, 7C, and 8C fatty acids, and dispensable for responses to shorter and longer-chain fatty acids. Such receptor specificity for different classes of fatty acids based on chain length has not been documented in other systems. In flies, both sugars and fatty acids evoke activity in neurons that co-express the receptors GR64f and IR56d. The finding that short- and long-chain fatty acids also evoke activity in IR56d-expressing neurons posits that additional fatty acid receptors are present in these neurons. Previously, we and others have found that deletion of Phospholipase C (PLC) signaling selectively impairs fatty acid response while leaving sweet taste intact, raising the possibility that activation of distinct intracellular signaling pathways could serve as a mechanism for discrimination between sucrose and fatty acid (Masek and Keene, 2013; Ahn et al., 2017; Tauber et al., 2017), while another suggests TRPA1 and GR64e are targets of PLC and are generally required for fatty acid sensing (Kim et al., 2018). Determining whether or not short- and long-chain fatty acids also signal through PLC may provide insight into whether signaling mechanisms are shared between different fatty acid receptors expressed in IR56d-expressing neurons.

Our aversive taste memory assay confirmed previous findings that flies can discriminate between sugars and fatty acids (Tauber et al., 2017), and led to the surprising observation that flies can distinguish between different classes of fatty acids, even though the baseline responsiveness to short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acids was similar in innate preference assays. Fatty acids are natural by-product of yeast fermentation (Diwan and Gupta, 2018; Nyanga et al., 2013; Oliveira et al., 2011), and their abundance in peaches, for example, declines after ripening (Duan et al., 2013). Further, fatty acids have antifungal activity, which scales with chain length (i.e., the greater the chain length, the greater the antifungal efficiency; Pohl et al., 2011). Thus, the ability to discriminate between different classes of fatty acids is likely to be important in determining the stage of fruit ripeness, degree of fermentation, and the general palatability of a potential food source/oviposition site.

The finding that flies can distinguish between different classes of fatty acids contrasts with the results of a previous study that applied a similar assay and found that flies were unable to discriminate between different sugars or bitter compounds (Masek and Scott, 2010). One possibility is that this is due to differences in fatty acid detection, which is dependent on IRs, and sweet and bitter tastant detection, which relies on GRs (Chen and Dahanukar, 2020). Our findings highlight the complexity of taste discrimination, which extends beyond simple PER as a readout for taste. For example, all types of fatty acids tested increase GR64f neural responsiveness; however, only GR64f neurons are required for PER to medium-chain fatty acids, thereby raising the possibility that short-, medium-, and long-chain fatty acid taste discrimination occurs through different neural channels. These findings stress the need to define the fatty acid receptors and neural circuits that govern responses to short- and long-chain fatty acid taste. Furthermore, the ability of the Drosophila the taste system to discriminate suggests it may be more like the olfactory system than previously appreciated. Flies are able to distinguish between many different odorants, likely due to the complexity of olfactory coding at the level of the receptor as well as in the antennal lobe (Amin and Lin, 2019; Cognigni et al., 2018; Guven-Ozkan and Davis, 2014). However, flies can also discriminate between odorants sensed by a single olfactory receptor, suggesting that temporal coding also plays a role in discrimination (DasGupta and Waddell, 2008). It is possible that similar mechanisms underlie discrimination between different classes of fatty acid tastants.

The Drosophila genome encodes 66 IRs, which comprise a recently identified family of receptors implicated in taste, olfaction, and temperature sensation (Benton et al., 2009; Rytz et al., 2013). IRs are involved in the detection of many different tastants and function as heteromers that confer sensory specificity (Rytz et al., 2013; van Giesen and Garrity, 2017). While IR56d expression is restricted to a subset of sweet taste neurons, it likely functions in a complex with IR25a and IR76b, all three of which are required fatty acid taste (Ahn et al., 2017; Sánchez-Alcañiz et al., 2018). Other tastants whose responses are mediated by IRs are also likely to be detected by IR complexes. For example, roles for IR25a, IR62a, and IR76b have been described for Ca²⁺ taste (Lee et al., 2018). The broad degree of co-expression of IRs in the brain and periphery can provide candidates for those involved in detecting short- and long-chain fatty acids.

The identification of taste discrimination between different classes of fatty acids provides the opportunity to identify how different tastants are encoded in the brain and how these circuits are modified with experience. Although projections of primary taste neurons to the SEZ have been mapped in some detail, little is known about connectivity with downstream neurons and whether sensory neurons responsive to different appetitive tastants can activate different downstream circuits. Recent studies have identified a number of interneurons that modify feeding, including IN1, a cholinergic interneuron responsive to sucrose (Yapici et al., 2016), E564 neurons that inhibit feeding (Mann et al., 2013), and Fdg neurons that are required for sucrose-induced feeding (Flood et al., 2013). Future work can investigate whether these and other downstream neurons are shared for fatty acid taste. Previous studies have found that incoming sensory information is selectively modulated within the SEZ in accordance with feeding state (Chu et al., 2014; LeDue et al., 2016). It will be interesting to determine if similar modulation promotes differentiation of sugars and fatty acids, which are sensed by shared GRNs. Large-scale brain imaging has now been applied in flies to measure responsiveness to different tastants (Harris et al., 2015), and a comparison of brain activity patterns elicited by different classes of fatty acids may provide insight into differences in their sensory input and processing.

All experiments in this study tested flies under starved conditions, which is necessary to elicit the PER that is used as a behavioral readout of taste acceptance. However, responses to many tastants and odorants are altered in accordance with feeding state (LeDue et al., 2016; Root et al., 2008). For example, the taste of acetic acid is aversive to fed flies but attractive to starved flies, revealing a hunger-dependent switch (Devineni et al., 2019). Similarly, hexanoic acid evokes activity in both sweet and bitter-sensing taste neurons, and the activity of bitter taste neurons is dependent on different receptors from those involved in the appetitive response (Ahn et al., 2017). Further, hunger enhances activity in sweet taste circuits and suppresses that of bitter taste circuits, providing a mechanism for complex state-dependent modulation of taste response that increase activity of both appetitive and deterrent neurons (Inagaki et al., 2014; LeDue et al., 2016).

The neural circuits that are required for aversive taste memory have been well defined for sugar, yet little is known about how fatty acid taste is conditioned. The pairing of sugar with bitter quinine results in aversive memory to sugar. Optogenetic activation of bitter taste neurons that are activated by quinine, in combination with the presentation of sugar, is sufficient to induce sugar avoidance (Keene and Masek, 2012). Further studies have elucidated that aversive taste memories are dependent on mushroom body neurons that form the gamma and alpha lobes, the PPL1 cluster of dopamine neurons, and alpha lobe output neurons, revealing a circuit regulating taste memory that differs from that controlling appetitive olfactory memory (Kirkhart and Scott, 2015; Masek et al., 2015). It will be interesting to determine whether shared components regulate conditioning to fatty acids or whether distinct mushroom body circuits regulate sweet and fatty acid taste conditioning. Further, examination of the central brain circuits that regulate aversive taste conditioning to different classes of fatty acids will provide insight into how taste discrimination is processed within the brain.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for all figures.

1. 1. Ahn JE
   2. Chen Y
   3. Amrein H

   (2017) Molecular basis of fatty acid taste in Drosophila

   eLife 6:e30115.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30115

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Akerboom J
   2. Chen TW
   3. Wardill TJ
   4. Tian L
   5. Marvin JS
   6. Mutlu S
   7. Calderón NC
   8. Esposti F
   9. Borghuis BG
   10. Sun XR
   11. Gordus A
   12. Orger MB
   13. Portugues R
   14. Engert F
   15. Macklin JJ
   16. Filosa A
   17. Aggarwal A
   18. Kerr RA
   19. Takagi R
   20. Kracun S
   21. Shigetomi E
   22. Khakh BS
   23. Baier H
   24. Lagnado L
   25. Wang SS
   26. Bargmann CI
   27. Kimmel BE
   28. Jayaraman V
   29. Svoboda K
   30. Kim DS
   31. Schreiter ER
   32. Looger LL

   (2012) Optimization of a GCaMP calcium Indicator for neural activity imaging

   Journal of Neuroscience 32:13819–13840.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2601-12.2012

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Amin H
   2. Lin AC

   (2019) Neuronal mechanisms underlying innate and learned olfactory processing in Drosophila

   Current Opinion in Insect Science 36:9–17.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2019.06.003

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Benton R
   2. Vannice KS
   3. Gomez-Diaz C
   4. Vosshall LB

   (2009) Variant ionotropic glutamate receptors as chemosensory receptors in Drosophila

   Cell 136:149–162.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.12.001

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Cameron P
   2. Hiroi M
   3. Ngai J
   4. Scott K

   (2010) The molecular basis for water taste in Drosophila

   Nature 465:91–95.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09011

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Carleton A
   2. Accolla R
   3. Simon SA

   (2010) Coding in the mammalian gustatory system

   Trends in Neurosciences 33:326–334.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2010.04.002

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chaudhari N
   2. Roper SD

   (2010) The cell biology of taste

   Journal of Cell Biology 190:285–296.

   https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201003144

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chen YD
   2. Dahanukar A

   (2020) Recent advances in the genetic basis of taste detection in Drosophila

   Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 77:1087–1101.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-019-03320-0

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chu B
   2. Chui V
   3. Mann K
   4. Gordon MD

   (2014) Presynaptic gain control drives sweet and bitter taste integration in Drosophila

   Current Biology 24:1978–1984.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.07.020

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Clyne PJ
    2. Warr CG
    3. Carlson JR

    (2000) Candidate taste receptors in Drosophila

    Science 287:1830–1834.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1830

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Cognigni P
    2. Felsenberg J
    3. Waddell S

    (2018) Do the right thing: neural network mechanisms of memory formation, expression and update in Drosophila

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 49:51–58.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2017.12.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Dahanukar A
    2. Lei YT
    3. Kwon JY
    4. Carlson JR

    (2007) Two gr genes underlie sugar reception in Drosophila

    Neuron 56:503–516.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. DasGupta S
    2. Waddell S

    (2008) Learned odor discrimination in Drosophila without combinatorial odor maps in the antennal lobe

    Current Biology 18:1668–1674.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.071

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Devineni AV
    2. Sun B
    3. Zhukovskaya A
    4. Axel R

    (2019) Acetic acid activates distinct taste pathways in Drosophila to elicit opposing, state-dependent feeding responses

    eLife 8:e47677.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47677

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Diwan B
    2. Gupta P

    (2018) Comprehending the influence of critical cultivation parameters on the oleaginous behaviour of potent rotten fruit yeast isolates

    Journal of Applied Microbiology 125:490–505.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13904

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Duan Y
    2. Dong X
    3. Liu B
    4. Li P

    (2013) Relationship of changes in the fatty acid compositions and fruit softening in peach (Prunus persica L. batsch)

    Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 35:707–713.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-012-1111-y

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Flood TF
    2. Iguchi S
    3. Gorczyca M
    4. White B
    5. Ito K
    6. Yoshihara M

    (2013) A single pair of interneurons commands the Drosophila feeding motor program

    Nature 499:83–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12208

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Freeman EG
    2. Dahanukar A

    (2015) Molecular neurobiology of Drosophila taste

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 34:140–148.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2015.06.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Guven-Ozkan T
    2. Davis RL

    (2014) Functional neuroanatomy of Drosophila olfactory memory formation

    Learning & Memory 21:519–526.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.034363.114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Hallem EA
    2. Dahanukar A
    3. Carlson JR

    (2006) Insect odor and taste receptors

    Annual Review of Entomology 51:113–135.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.51.051705.113646

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Hallem EA
    2. Carlson JR

    (2006) Coding of odors by a receptor repertoire

    Cell 125:143–160.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.01.050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Harris DT
    2. Kallman BR
    3. Mullaney BC
    4. Scott K

    (2015) Representations of taste modality in the Drosophila brain

    Neuron 86:1449–1460.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.05.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Inagaki HK
    2. Panse KM
    3. Anderson DJ

    (2014) Independent, reciprocal neuromodulatory control of sweet and bitter taste sensitivity during starvation in Drosophila

    Neuron 84:806–820.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.09.032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Jiao Y
    2. Moon SJ
    3. Wang X
    4. Ren Q
    5. Montell C

    (2008) Gr64f is required in combination with other gustatory receptors for sugar detection in Drosophila

    Current Biology 18:1797–1801.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.10.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Kang K
    2. Pulver SR
    3. Panzano VC
    4. Chang EC
    5. Griffith LC
    6. Theobald DL
    7. Garrity PA

    (2010) Analysis of Drosophila TRPA1 reveals an ancient origin for human chemical nociception

    Nature 464:597–600.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08848

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Keene AC
    2. Masek P

    (2012) Optogenetic induction of aversive taste memory

    Neuroscience 222:173–180.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.07.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Keller A
    2. Gerkin RC
    3. Guan Y
    4. Dhurandhar A
    5. Turu G
    6. Szalai B
    7. Mainland JD
    8. Ihara Y
    9. Yu CW
    10. Wolfinger R
    11. Vens C
    12. Schietgat L
    13. De Grave K
    14. Norel R
    15. Stolovitzky G
    16. Cecchi GA
    17. Vosshall LB
    18. Meyer P
    19. DREAM Olfaction Prediction Consortium

    (2017) Predicting human olfactory perception from chemical features of odor molecules

    Science 355:820–826.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal2014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Kim H
    2. Kim H
    3. Kwon JY
    4. Seo JT
    5. Shin DM
    6. Moon SJ

    (2018) Drosophila Gr64e mediates fatty acid sensing via the phospholipase C pathway

    PLOS Genetics 14:e1007229.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007229

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Kirkhart C
    2. Scott K

    (2015) Gustatory learning and processing in the Drosophila

    Journal of Neuroscience 15:5950–5958.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3930-14.2015

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Koh TW
    2. He Z
    3. Gorur-Shandilya S
    4. Menuz K
    5. Larter NK
    6. Stewart S
    7. Carlson JR

    (2014) The Drosophila IR20a clade of ionotropic receptors are candidate taste and pheromone receptors

    Neuron 83:850–865.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.07.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Kubrak OI
    2. Lushchak OV
    3. Zandawala M
    4. Nässel DR

    (2016) Systemic corazonin signalling modulates stress responses and metabolism in Drosophila

    Open Biology 6:160152.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.160152

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. LeDue EE
    2. Mann K
    3. Koch E
    4. Chu B
    5. Dakin R
    6. Gordon MD

    (2016) Starvation-Induced depotentiation of bitter taste in Drosophila

    Current Biology 26:2854–2861.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Lee Y
    2. Poudel S
    3. Kim Y
    4. Thakur D
    5. Montell C

    (2018) Calcium taste avoidance in Drosophila

    Neuron 97:67–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.11.038

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Levis R
    2. Hazelrigg T
    3. Rubin GM

    (1985) Effects of genomic position on the expression of transduced copies of the white gene of Drosophila

    Science 229:558–561.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2992080

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Mann K
    2. Gordon MD
    3. Scott K

    (2013) A pair of interneurons influences the choice between feeding and locomotion in Drosophila

    Neuron 79:754–765.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.06.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Marella S
    2. Fischler W
    3. Kong P
    4. Asgarian S
    5. Rueckert E
    6. Scott K

    (2006) Imaging taste responses in the fly brain reveals a functional map of taste category and behavior

    Neuron 49:285–295.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.11.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Marella S
    2. Mann K
    3. Scott K

    (2012) Dopaminergic modulation of sucrose acceptance behavior in Drosophila

    Neuron 73:941–950.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.12.032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Masek P
    2. Worden K
    3. Aso Y
    4. Rubin GM
    5. Keene AC

    (2015) A dopamine-modulated neural circuit regulating aversive taste memory in Drosophila

    Current Biology 25:1535–1541.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.04.027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Masek P
    2. Keene AC

    (2013) Drosophila fatty acid taste signals through the PLC pathway in sugar-sensing neurons

    PLOS Genetics 9:e1003710.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003710

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Masek P
    2. Scott K

    (2010) Limited taste discrimination in Drosophila

    PNAS 107:14833–14838.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009318107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Mishra D
    2. Thorne N
    3. Miyamoto C
    4. Jagge C
    5. Amrein H

    (2018) The taste of ribonucleosides: novel macronutrients essential for larval growth are sensed by Drosophila gustatory receptor proteins

    PLOS Biology 16:e2005570.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005570

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Nara K
    2. Saraiva LR
    3. Ye X
    4. Buck LB

    (2011) A large-scale analysis of odor coding in the olfactory epithelium

    Journal of Neuroscience 31:9179–9191.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1282-11.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Nyanga LK
    2. Nout MJ
    3. Smid EJ
    4. Boekhout T
    5. Zwietering MH

    (2013) Fermentation characteristics of yeasts isolated from traditionally fermented masau (Ziziphus mauritiana) fruits

    International Journal of Food Microbiology 166:426–432.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.08.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Oliveira MES
    2. Pantoja L
    3. Duarte WF
    4. Collela CF
    5. Valarelli LT
    6. Schwan RF
    7. Dias DR

    (2011) Fruit wine produced from cagaita (Eugenia dysenterica DC) by both free and immobilised yeast cell fermentation

    Food Research International 44:2391–2400.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.02.028

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Parnas M
    2. Lin AC
    3. Huetteroth W
    4. Miesenböck G

    (2013) Odor discrimination in Drosophila: from neural population codes to behavior

    Neuron 79:932–944.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.08.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Pfeiffer BD
    2. Ngo TT
    3. Hibbard KL
    4. Murphy C
    5. Jenett A
    6. Truman JW
    7. Rubin GM

    (2010) Refinement of tools for targeted gene expression in Drosophila

    Genetics 186:735–755.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.110.119917

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Pohl CH
    2. Kock JLF
    3. Thibane VS

    (2011)

    Antifungal free fatty acids: a review

    Science Against Microbial Pathogens Communicating Current Research and Technological Advances 1:61–71.

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Pool AH
    2. Kvello P
    3. Mann K
    4. Cheung SK
    5. Gordon MD
    6. Wang L
    7. Scott K

    (2014) Four GABAergic interneurons impose feeding restraint in Drosophila

    Neuron 83:164–177.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Root CM
    2. Masuyama K
    3. Green DS
    4. Enell LE
    5. Nässel DR
    6. Lee CH
    7. Wang JW

    (2008) A presynaptic gain control mechanism fine-tunes olfactory behavior

    Neuron 59:311–321.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.07.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Rytz R
    2. Croset V
    3. Benton R

    (2013) Ionotropic receptors (IRs): chemosensory ionotropic glutamate receptors in Drosophila and beyond

    Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 43:888–897.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2013.02.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Sánchez-Alcañiz JA
    2. Silbering AF
    3. Croset V
    4. Zappia G
    5. Sivasubramaniam AK
    6. Abuin L
    7. Sahai SY
    8. Münch D
    9. Steck K
    10. Auer TO
    11. Cruchet S
    12. Neagu-Maier GL
    13. Sprecher SG
    14. Ribeiro C
    15. Yapici N
    16. Benton R

    (2018) An expression atlas of variant ionotropic glutamate receptors identifies a molecular basis of carbonation sensing

    Nature Communications 9:4252.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06453-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Scott K
    2. Brady R
    3. Cravchik A
    4. Morozov P
    5. Rzhetsky A
    6. Zuker C
    7. Axel R

    (2001) A chemosensory gene family encoding candidate gustatory and olfactory receptors in Drosophila

    Cell 104:661–673.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00263-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Scott K

    (2018) Gustatory processing in Drosophila melanogaster

    Annual Review of Entomology 63:15–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043331

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Slone J
    2. Daniels J
    3. Amrein H

    (2007) Sugar receptors in Drosophila

    Current Biology 17:1809–1816.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Sweeney ST
    2. Broadie K
    3. Keane J
    4. Niemann H
    5. O'Kane CJ

    (1995) Targeted expression of tetanus toxin light chain in Drosophila specifically eliminates synaptic transmission and causes behavioral defects

    Neuron 14:341–351.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0896-6273(95)90290-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Tauber JM
    2. Brown EB
    3. Li Y
    4. Yurgel ME
    5. Masek P
    6. Keene AC

    (2017) A subset of sweet-sensing neurons identified by IR56d are necessary and sufficient for fatty acid taste

    PLOS Genetics 13:e1007059.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007059

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Thoma V
    2. Knapek S
    3. Arai S
    4. Hartl M
    5. Kohsaka H
    6. Sirigrivatanawong P
    7. Abe A
    8. Hashimoto K
    9. Tanimoto H

    (2016) Functional dissociation in sweet taste receptor neurons between and within taste organs of Drosophila

    Nature Communications 7:10678.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10678

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Thorne N
    2. Chromey C
    3. Bray S
    4. Amrein H

    (2004) Taste perception and coding in Drosophila

    Current Biology 14:1065–1079.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.05.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. van Giesen L
    2. Garrity PA

    (2017) More than meets the IR: the expanding roles of variant ionotropic glutamate receptors in sensing odor, taste, temperature and moisture

    F1000Research 6:1753.

    https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12013.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Vosshall LB
    2. Stocker RF

    (2007) Molecular architecture of smell and taste in Drosophila

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 30:505–533.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094306

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Wang Z
    2. Singhvi A
    3. Kong P
    4. Scott K

    (2004) Taste representations in the Drosophila brain

    Cell 117:981–991.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2004.06.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Wisotsky Z
    2. Medina A
    3. Freeman E
    4. Dahanukar A

    (2011) Evolutionary differences in food preference rely on Gr64e, a receptor for glycerol

    Nature Neuroscience 14:1534–1541.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2944

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Yapici N
    2. Cohn R
    3. Schusterreiter C
    4. Ruta V
    5. Vosshall LB

    (2016) A taste circuit that regulates ingestion by integrating food and hunger signals

    Cell 165:715–729.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.02.061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Yarmolinsky DA
    2. Zuker CS
    3. Ryba NJ

    (2009) Common sense about taste: from mammals to insects

    Cell 139:234–244.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Zhang Y
    2. Hoon MA
    3. Chandrashekar J
    4. Mueller KL
    5. Cook B
    6. Wu D
    7. Zuker CS
    8. Ryba NJ

    (2003) Coding of sweet, bitter, and umami tastes: different receptor cells sharing similar signaling pathways

    Cell 112:293–301.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00071-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Zhang YV
    2. Ni J
    3. Montell C

    (2013) The molecular basis for attractive salt-taste coding in Drosophila

    Science 340:1334–1338.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234133

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Elizabeth B Brown

   Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0825-8199

2. Kreesha D Shah

   1. Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, United States
   2. Wilkes Honors College, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Writing - original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Justin Palermo

   Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Manali Dey

   Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Anupama Dahanukar

   1. Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States
   2. Department of Molecular, Cell & Systems Biology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   anupama.dahanukar@ucr.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Alex C Keene

   Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   keenea@fau.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6118-5537

• 1,675

  views

• 213

  downloads

• 37

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.