Postsynaptic plasticity of cholinergic synapses underlies the induction and expression of appetitive and familiarity memories in Drosophila

Abstract

In vertebrates, several forms of memory-relevant synaptic plasticity involve postsynaptic rearrangements of glutamate receptors. In contrast, previous work indicates that Drosophila and other invertebrates store memories using presynaptic plasticity of cholinergic synapses. Here, we provide evidence for postsynaptic plasticity at cholinergic output synapses from the Drosophila mushroom bodies (MBs). We find that the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) subunit α5 is required within specific MB output neurons (MBONs) for appetitive memory induction, but is dispensable for aversive memories. In addition, nAChR α2 subunits mediate memory expression and likely function downstream of α5 and the postsynaptic scaffold protein Dlg. We show that postsynaptic plasticity traces can be induced independently of the presynapse, and that in vivo dynamics of α2 nAChR subunits are changed both in the context of associative and non-associative (familiarity) memory formation, underlying different plasticity rules. Therefore, regardless of neurotransmitter identity, key principles of postsynaptic plasticity support memory storage across phyla.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Carlotta Pribbenow

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Yi-chun Chen

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9187-930X
  3. Michael-Marcel Heim

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Desiree Laber

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Silas Reubold

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Eric Reynolds

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Isabella Balles

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Tania Fernández-d.V. Alquicira

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Raquel Suárez-Grimalt

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5374-7963
  10. Lisa Scheunemann

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Carolin Rauch

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Tanja Matkovic

    Institute for Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Jörg Rösner

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Gregor Lichtner

    Department of Anesthesia, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Sridhar R Jagannathan

    Institute of Neurophysiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. David Owald

    NeuroCure, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    For correspondence
    david.owald@charite.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7747-7884

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (390688087)

  • David Owald

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (184695641)

  • David Owald

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (327654276)

  • David Owald

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (365082554)

  • David Owald

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

  • Sridhar R Jagannathan

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Patrik Verstreken, KU Leuven, Belgium

Version history

  1. Received: May 20, 2022
  2. Preprint posted: July 16, 2022 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: October 17, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: October 17, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: December 9, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Pribbenow et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,500
    views
  • 333
    downloads
  • 10
    citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Carlotta Pribbenow
  2. Yi-chun Chen
  3. Michael-Marcel Heim
  4. Desiree Laber
  5. Silas Reubold
  6. Eric Reynolds
  7. Isabella Balles
  8. Tania Fernández-d.V. Alquicira
  9. Raquel Suárez-Grimalt
  10. Lisa Scheunemann
  11. Carolin Rauch
  12. Tanja Matkovic
  13. Jörg Rösner
  14. Gregor Lichtner
  15. Sridhar R Jagannathan
  16. David Owald
(2022)
Postsynaptic plasticity of cholinergic synapses underlies the induction and expression of appetitive and familiarity memories in Drosophila
eLife 11:e80445.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80445

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80445

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.