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.

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

  • 1,820
    views
  • 363
    downloads
  • 18
    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
    William T Redman, Santiago Acosta-Mendoza ... Michael J Goard
    Research Article

    Although grid cells are one of the most well-studied functional classes of neurons in the mammalian brain, whether there is a single orientation and spacing value per grid module has not been carefully tested. We analyze a recent large-scale recording of medial entorhinal cortex to characterize the presence and degree of heterogeneity of grid properties within individual modules. We find evidence for small, but robust, variability and hypothesize that this property of the grid code could enhance the encoding of local spatial information. Performing analysis on synthetic populations of grid cells, where we have complete control over the amount heterogeneity in grid properties, we demonstrate that grid property variability of a similar magnitude to the analyzed data leads to significantly decreased decoding error. This holds even when restricted to activity from a single module. Our results highlight how the heterogeneity of the neural response properties may benefit coding and opens new directions for theoretical and experimental analysis of grid cells.

    1. Neuroscience
    Maren Klingelhöfer-Jens, Katharina Hutterer ... Tina B Lonsdorf
    Research Article

    Childhood adversity is a strong predictor of developing psychopathological conditions. Multiple theories on the mechanisms underlying this association have been suggested which, however, differ in the operationalization of ‘exposure.’ Altered (threat) learning mechanisms represent central mechanisms by which environmental inputs shape emotional and cognitive processes and ultimately behavior. 1402 healthy participants underwent a fear conditioning paradigm (acquisition training, generalization), while acquiring skin conductance responses (SCRs) and ratings (arousal, valence, and contingency). Childhood adversity was operationalized as (1) dichotomization, and following (2) the specificity model, (3) the cumulative risk model, and (4) the dimensional model. Individuals exposed to childhood adversity showed blunted physiological reactivity in SCRs, but not ratings, and reduced CS+/CS- discrimination during both phases, mainly driven by attenuated CS+ responding. The latter was evident across different operationalizations of ‘exposure’ following the different theories. None of the theories tested showed clear explanatory superiority. Notably, a remarkably different pattern of increased responding to the CS- is reported in the literature for anxiety patients, suggesting that individuals exposed to childhood adversity may represent a specific sub-sample. We highlight that theories linking childhood adversity to (vulnerability to) psychopathology need refinement.