Abstract

Animals must learn to ignore stimuli that are irrelevant to survival and attend to ones that enhance survival. When a stimulus regularly fails to be associated with an important consequence, subsequent excitatory learning about that stimulus can be delayed, which is a form of nonassociative conditioning called ‘latent inhibition’. Honey bees show latent inhibition toward an odor they have experienced without association with food reinforcement. Moreover, individual honey bees from the same colony differ in the degree to which they show latent inhibition, and these individual differences have a genetic basis. To investigate the mechanisms that underly individual differences in latent inhibition, we selected two honey bee lines for high and low latent inhibition, respectively. We crossed those lines and mapped a Quantitative Trait Locus for latent inhibition to a region of the genome that contains the tyramine receptor gene Amtyr1 [We use Amtyr1 to denote the gene and AmTYR1 the receptor throughout the text.]. We then show that disruption of Amtyr1 signaling either pharmacologically or through RNAi qualitatively changes the expression of latent inhibition but has little or slight effects on appetitive conditioning, and these results suggest that AmTYR1 modulates inhibitory processing in the CNS. Electrophysiological recordings from the brain during pharmacological blockade are consistent with a model that AmTYR1 indirectly regulates at inhibitory synapses in the CNS. Our results therefore identify a distinct Amtyr1-based modulatory pathway for this type of nonassociative learning, and we propose a model for how Amtyr1 acts as a gain control to modulate hebbian plasticity at defined synapses in the CNS. We have shown elsewhere how this modulation also underlies potentially adaptive intracolonial learning differences among individuals that benefit colony survival. Finally, our neural model suggests a mechanism for the broad pleiotropy this gene has on several different behaviors.

Editor's evaluation

This article reports a significant discovery: disrupting the function of the tyramine receptor in honey bees causes a rapid decline in their responses to olfactory stimuli. This finding highlights the important role of tyramine receptors, one of the most highly expressed biogenic amine receptors in the insect olfactory system. The authors propose that tyramine signaling may specifically control the process of latent inhibition, but the evidence presented does not rule out the possibility that tyramine affects other functions of the antennal lobe.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83348.sa0

eLife digest

To efficiently navigate their environment, animals must pay attention to cues associated with events important for survival while also dismissing meaningless signals. The difference between relevant and irrelevant stimuli is learned through a range of complex mechanisms that includes latent inhibition. This process allows animals to ignore irrelevant stimuli, which makes it more difficult for them to associate a cue and a reward if that cue has been unrewarded before. For example, bees will take longer to ‘learn’ that a certain floral odor signals a feeding opportunity if they first repeatedly encountered the smell when food was absent. Such a mechanism allows organisms to devote more attention to other stimuli which have the potential to be important for survival.

The strength of latent inhibition – as revealed by how quickly and easily an individual can learn to associate a reward with a previously unrewarded stimulus – can differ between individuals. For instance, this is the case in honey bee colonies, where workers have the same mother but may come from different fathers. Such genetic variation can be beneficial for the hive, with high latent inhibition workers being better suited for paying attention to and harvesting known resources, and their low latent inhibition peers for discovering new ones. However, the underlying genetic and neural mechanisms underpinning latent inhibition variability between individuals remained unclear.

To investigate this question, Latshaw et al. cross-bred bees from high and low latent inhibition genetic lines. The resulting progeny underwent behavioral tests, and the genome of low and high latent inhibition individuals was screened. These analyses revealed a candidate gene, Amtyr1, which was associated with individual variations in the learning mechanism.

Further experiments showed that blocking or disrupting the production the AMTYR1 protein led to altered latent inhibition behavior as well as dampened attention-related processing in recordings from the central nervous system. Based on these findings, a model was proposed detailing how varying degrees of Amtyr1 activation can tune Hebbian plasticity, the brain mechanism that allows organisms to regulate associations between cues and events. Importantly, because of the way AMTYR1 acts in the nervous system, this modulatory role could go beyond latent inhibition, with the associated gene controlling the activity of a range of foraging-related behaviors. Genetic work in model organisms such as fruit flies would allow a more in-depth understanding of such network modulation.

Introduction

The ability to learn predictive associations between stimuli and important events, such as food or threats, is ubiquitous among animals (Heyes, 2012), and it may underlie more complex cognitive capabilities (Heyes, 2012; Dickinson, 2012). This ability arises from various forms of associative and operant conditioning (Mackintosh, 1983). However, the absence of reward also provides important information for learning about stimuli, because all animals must use this information to redirect a limited attention capacity to more important stimuli (Lubow, 1989). One important mechanism for learning to ignore irrelevant stimuli is called latent inhibition (Lubow, 1973). After an animal is presented with a stimulus several times without reinforcement, learning is delayed or slower when that same stimulus is reinforced in a way that would normally produce robust excitatory conditioning. For example, when honey bees are repeatedly exposed to a floral odor without association to food rewards, their ability to subsequently learn an excitatory association of this odor with a reward is delayed or reduced (Chandra et al., 2010). While many studies in the honey bee have focused around how the presence of reward shapes learning and memory (Langberg and Smith, 2006), evaluating this important form of nonassociative learning has not received as much attention (Chandra et al., 2010; Abramson and Bitterman, 1986). Yet, like in all animals, it plays an important ecological role in the learning repertoire of honey bees. The presence of unrewarding flowers in an otherwise productive patch of flowers (Seefeldt and De Marco, 2008), or the unreinforced presence of an odor in the colony (Fernández et al., 2009), can influence foragers’ choices of flowers during foraging trips.

Moreover, individual honey bees from the same colony differ in the degree to which they exhibit several learning traits (Brandes, 1991; Chandra et al., 2000; Finke et al., 2021; Smith et al., 1991; Pamir et al., 2014), including latent inhibition (Chandra et al., 2000). Several studies of different forms of learning have demonstrated that individual differences are heritable (Chandra et al., 2000). Individuals showing different learning phenotypes occur within the same colony because a queen mates with up to 20 drones (males) (Page, 2013), and thus honey bee colonies typically contain a mixture of many different paternal genotypes. This within-colony genetic diversity of learning capacities may reflect a colony level trait that allows the colony to react and adapt to rapidly changing resource distributions (Latshaw and Smith, 2005; Mosqueiro et al., 2017).

Our objective here was to evaluate the genetic and neural mechanisms that underlie individual differences for latent inhibition in honey bees. We show that a major locus supporting individual differences maps to a location in the honey bee genome previously identified in independent mapping studies as being important for latent inhibition (Chandra et al., 2001) as well as for sugar and pollen preferences in foragers (Hunt et al., 2007; Page et al., 2000). Disruption of a tyramine receptor encoded by Amtyr1 in this region changes expression of latent inhibition in a way that suggests that intact signaling via the Amtyr1 pathway is important for modulating plasticity at inhibitory synapses. Furthermore, electrophysiological analyses combined with blockade of the AmTYR1 receptor in the antennal lobe – the first synaptic center along the olfactory pathway – decreased antennal lobe responsiveness to odor and blocked a neural correlate of latent inhibition. Finally, sequencing the gene failed to reveal mutations in the coding regions that would affect protein function, leading to the conclusion that variation across workers could arise from differential gene expression through transcriptional regulation.

We discuss how these data strongly imply a functional role for Amtyr1 signaling in modulating expression of attention via latent inhibition. We use the term ‘modulating’ to specifically propose that Amtyr1 is not causing latent inhibition. Rather, it modulates excitatory inputs to circuitry that implements hebbian plasticity between downstream components that drive latent inhibition. Specifically, disruption of Amtyr1 increases excitatory drive to those components, and that increase drives stronger inhibitory hebbian plasticity. We propose modifications to an existing model for LTP-based latent inhibition in the antennal lobe to show that it can produce both the high and low phenotypes in natural populations by simply increasing or decreasing the level of Amtyr1 activation. This model also suggests how this gene can exert broad pleiotropic effects on several different behaviors by acting as a gain control in different types of neural circuits or physiological processes. Given the established Amtyr1-based variation between workers in how this behavior is expressed, and presumably in how the circuitry functions differentially in their brains, these findings are also important for understanding the strategies colonies use to explore for and exploit pollen and nectar resources (Cook et al., 2020).

Results

We used two genetic lines of honey bees that had been bred for high (inhibitor) or low (noninhibitor) expression of latent inhibition. These lines were independently selected using identical methods to a previous study that had successfully bred high and low lines (Chandra et al., 2001). We evaluated 523 recombinant drones generated from a single hybrid queen produced from a cross between a drone from a noninhibitor line and a queen from an inhibitor line (Figure 1). Honey bee drones are ideal for behavior genetic studies because they are haploid progeny that develop from an unfertilized egg laid by the queen. We then selected 94 high and 94 low performing drones for the Quantitative Trait Locus (QTL) analysis, which identified one significant locus (Figure 2A). The QTL mapped to the same genomic region identified in a previous study of latent inhibition (called ‘lrn1’) using an independent inhibitor and noninhibitor cross and different (RAPD-based) genetic markers (Chandra et al., 2001). This is the same genomic region that has been identified in studies of foraging preferences of honey bees (Page et al., 2000; Hunt et al., 1995), where it has been called pln2 for its effect on pollen versus nectar preferences and in modulating sensitivity to sucrose (Pankiw et al., 2001). Clearly, this genomic region has major effects on several foraging-related behaviors.

Evaluation and selection of drones from an F1 queen.

(A) Drone honey bees were first evaluated by conditioning them over three trials to an odor (A; gray bars) followed by sucrose reinforcement (triangles) in a way that produces robust associative conditioning expressed as odor-induced proboscis extension response (PER) (Bitterman et al., 1983). All drones that showed no PER response on the first trial and PER response on each of the following two trials were selected for the subsequent familiarization phase. This procedure ensured that only drones motivated to respond to sucrose and learn the association with odor were selected. Approximately 10% of honey bees fail to show evidence of learning in PER conditioning using the collection methods described in Materials and methods. The familiarization phase involved 40 4 s exposures to a different odor (X; black bars) using a 5-min interstimulus interval. These conditions are sufficient for generating latent inhibition that lasts for at least 24 hr (Chandra et al., 2010). Finally, the test phase involved six exposures to X followed by sucrose reinforcement. (B) Frequency distribution of 523 drones evaluated in the test phase. The x-axis shows the summed number of responses over six conditioning trials. Fewer responses correspond to stronger latent inhibition. A total of 94 drones were selected in each tail of the distribution. ‘Inhibitor’ drones showed zero through three responses, and ‘Noninhibitor’ drones showed five or six responses. (C) Acquisition curves for the 94 inhibitor and noninhibitor drones. Approximately half of the noninhibitor drones showed spontaneous responses on the first trial, which is typical for noninhibitors in latent inhibition studies of honey bees (Chandra et al., 2010). All of the drones in that category showed responses on trials 1–6. In contrast, inhibitor drones showed delayed acquisition to the now familiar odor.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mapping of high and low recombinant drones.

(A) Markers from linkage group 1.55 surrounding one significant Quantitative Trait Locus (QTL; est941 with a LOD score of 2.6). (B) Partial list of genes within 10 cM of the marker showing the location of Amtyr1.

When we analyzed the gene list within the confidence intervals of this QTL, one gene – Amtyr1 – in particular stood out (Figure 2A, B). That gene encodes a biogenic amine receptor for tyramine (AmTYR1) (Blenau et al., 2000) that is expressed in several regions of the honey bee brain (Mustard et al., 2005; Sinakevitch et al., 2017; Thamm et al., 2017). AmTYR1 is most closely related to the insect α2-adrenergic-like octopamine receptors and the vertebrate α2-adrenergic receptors (Blenau et al., 2020). Activation of AmTYR1 reduces cAMP levels in neurons that express it. We specifically considered AmTYR1 for more detailed evaluation for several reasons. Tyramine affects sucrose sensitivity in honey bees (Scheiner et al., 2017), and nurses and foragers differ in AmTYR1 expression (Scheiner et al., 2014). Mutations in the orthologous tyramine receptor in fruit flies disrupt odor-guided innate behaviors to repellants (Kutsukake et al., 2000). Tyramine is also the direct biosynthetic precursor to octopamine (Roeder, 2005), which has been widely implicated in sucrose-driven appetitive reinforcement learning in the honey bee (Farooqui et al., 2003; Hammer, 1993). Therefore, Ventral Unpaired Medial neurons, which lie on the median of the subesophageal ganglion in the honey bee brain (Sinakevitch et al., 2017; Sinakevitch et al., 2005; Sinakevitch et al., 2018; Kreissl et al., 1994), and which form the basis for the appetitive reinforcement pathway must produce tyramine in the process of making octopamine. Recent analyses indicate these neurons in locusts and fruit flies also release both neuromodulators when activated (Kononenko et al., 2009; Schützler et al., 2019). Finally, octopamine and tyramine affect locomotor activity in the honey bee (Fussnecker et al., 2006).

We then evaluated whether nonsynonymous mutations in the coding sequence might change the functionality of the receptor. We performed a detailed genomic analysis of the 40-kb region including the Amtyr1 gene, a 2-kb upstream, and a 0.5-kb downstream noncoding region. Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) frequency in the coding sequence (CDS) was relatively low compared to the genome wide SNP frequency, and all 46 SNPs in the coding regions in any of the sequenced eight individual worker genomes represented synonymous substitutions, that is, these SNPs do not change the sequence of the encoded protein. Thus, phenotypic differences are not caused by structural changes in the tyramine receptor protein itself. We did, however, find an increased SNP frequency in introns, the up- and downstream noncoding regions and the 3′ untranslated region. If Amtyr1 is involved in latent inhibition, these variations might be linked to the changes in the regulation of Amtyr1 gene expression, for example, by changes in transcription factor-binding sites or the stability of the mRNA, which might eventually be responsible for the observed phenotypic differences.

Disruption of Amtyr1 affects expression of latent inhibition

To further examine the role of Amtyr1 signaling in latent inhibition, we performed a series of behavioral experiments that involved treatment of honey bees either with the tyramine receptor antagonist yohimbine (Reim et al., 2017) or with a Dicer-substrate small interfering (Dsi) RNA of the receptor (NCBI Reference Sequence: NM_001011594.1) to disrupt translation of mRNA into AmTYR1 (Sinakevitch et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2018). For these experiments, we used unselected worker honey bees from the same background population used for selection studies, which ensured that workers used for behavioral assays would represent a mixture of inhibitor and noninhibitor phenotypes. Therefore, treatment could increase or decrease the mean level of latent inhibition in this population. Training involved two phases (Figure 3A). First, during the ‘familiarization’ phase honey bees were identically exposed over 40 trials to odor X without reinforcement. Our previous studies have shown that this procedure produces robust latent inhibition. The second ‘test’ phase involved measurement of latent inhibition. During this phase odor X and a ‘novel’ odor N were presented on separate trials. Both odors were associated with sucrose reinforcement in a way that produces robust appetitive conditioning (Bitterman et al., 1983). Latent inhibition would be evident if responses to odor X were lower than the responses to the novel odor N. Injections of yohimbine directly into brains occurred either prior to the familiarization phase (Figure 3A, B) or prior to the test phase (Figure 3C).

Blockade of the tyramine receptor with yohimbine modulated expression of latent inhibition.

(A) Acquisition during the test phase in two injection groups of honey bees familiarized to air as a control procedure to evaluate the effects of yohimbine on excitatory conditioning. The conditioning protocol is shown at the top. In this experiment (and in B and C) we omitted the first phase (Figure 1A), which does not affect expression of latent inhibition (Chandra et al., 2010) and is only necessary when subjects are being selected for development of genetic lines. One group was injected (arrow) with saline (orange circles; n = 37 animals) and the other with yohimbine (blue triangles; n = 35) prior to familiarization. Because there was no odor presented during familiarization (open box), odors during the test phase were both ‘novel’ when conditioned, although one was arbitrarily assigned as familiar. The test phase in this experiment (also in B and C) differed from the test phase in Figure 1. For this design, each subject was equivalently conditioned to both odors on separate, pseudorandomly interspersed trials. Acquisition to both odors in both injection groups was evident as a significant effect of trial (X2 = 47.5, df = 3, p < 0.001). None of the remaining effects (odor, injection, or any of the interaction terms) were significant (p > 0.05). (B) As in A, except both groups (orange saline: n = 36; blue yohimbine: n = 36) in this experiment were familiarized to odor; each odor (gray and black boxes; see Methods) was familiarized in approximately half of the animals in each injection group. In this design, each individual was equivalently conditioned to both odors during the test phase; latent inhibition is evident when the response to the novel odor is greater than to the familiar odor. Injection was prior to odor familiarization. (C) As in B, except injection of saline (n = 32) or yohimbine (n = 30) occurred prior to the test phase. Statistical analysis of datasets in B and C yielded a significant interaction (X2 = 7.4, df = 1, p < 0.01) between injection (saline vs yohimbine) and odor (novel vs familiar) that was the same in both experiments, as judged by the lack of a significant odor × injection × experiment interaction term (p > 0.05). There was a higher response to the novel odor than to the familiar odor, but only in the saline injected groups. The lower rate of acquisition in C (X2 = 64.0, 1, p < 0.01) could be due to performance of this experiment at a different time of year, or to injections immediately prior to testing, which affects levels proboscis extension response (PER) conditioning in honey bees but leaves intact relative differences between groups (Gerber et al., 1996).

The first experiment provided an important control procedure to evaluate whether yohimbine affects excitatory conditioning. This procedure involved familiarization to air, which does not induce latent inhibition to odor (Chandra et al., 2010). Honey bees familiarized to air learned the association of both odors with sucrose reinforcement equally well (Figure 3A). The response to each odor significantly increased, as expected, across trials (X2 = 47.5, df = 3, p < 0.001). Moreover, there was no effect of injection with saline versus yohimbine; the response levels to all four odors across the saline and yohimbine injection groups were equivalent. Therefore, blockade of tyramine signaling does not affect excitatory conditioning, which is an important control for the effects about to be described. This control procedure also shows that yohimbine at 10−4 M probably does not affect receptors for other biogenic amines, such as octopamine, dopamine, and serotonin, all of which have been shown to have specific effects on appetitive olfactory learning in honey bees (Farooqui et al., 2003; Wright et al., 2010; Hammer and Menzel, 1998; Mercer and Menzel, 1982; Bicker and Menzel, 1989).

Yohimbine treatment affected the expression of latent inhibition in both treatments that involved familiarization to odor (the interaction between novel vs familiar odor and saline vs yohimbine injection: X2 = 7.4, df = 1, p < 0.01). First, in the saline controls, honey bees responded more often to odor N than to X after injection of saline prior to familiarization or prior to testing (Figure 3B, C, circles). The response to the familiar odor was lower than the response to the novel odor on most trials, including spontaneous responses on the first trial. Injection of yohimbine eliminated the difference in response to the novel and familiar odors. Moreover, the responses to both odors after yohimbine treatment were significantly lower than, or at least equal to, the response to the familiar odor in the respective saline controls. This pattern could not arise from blockade of excitatory learning about N, because excitatory learning was unaffected in the air preexposure controls (Figure 3A). Instead, the yohimbine-induced pattern was specific to the treatments in which one odor was familiar.

This result implies that blockade of AmTYR1 modulates latent inhibition to a familiar odor and that the effect now generalizes to the novel odor. Finally, the relative effect of yohimbine treatment, that is reduction of proboscis extension response (PER) rate, is similar when it is injected either prior to familiarization (Figure 3B) or prior to testing (Figure 3C). This pattern, that is, the same effect prior to acquisition or testing, is similar to the action of octopamine blockade on excitatory conditioning (Farooqui et al., 2003).

Although the results with yohimbine were promising, we were concerned that yohimbine can have effects on other receptors, specifically on an α2-adrenergic-like octopamine receptor (Blenau et al., 2020) and on an excitatory tyramine receptor AmTYR2 (Reim et al., 2017). Therefore, we decided to disrupt Amtyr1 expression via injection of Amtyr1 DsiRNA in order to provide an independent method to test the role of AmTYR1 in producing latent inhibition (Figure 4). Yohimbine blocks the receptor, whereas dsiAmtyr1 disrupts production of the receptor protein. Similar outcomes with the two different methods would increase confidence in the result. For the behavioral experiments, we used the same procedure as above for yohimbine except that the mixture of three Amtyr1 DsiRNA constructs was injected 20 hr prior to conditioning because of the time frame needed for the DsiRNA to target mRNA. Because of that time frame, and because injection of yohimbine prior to either phase produced equivalent results, we performed injections of Amtyr1 DsiRNA only prior to familiarization. As a control we used a scrambled sequence of Amtyr1 (DsiScr). Use of DsiScr controls for possible nonspecific effects arising from any aspect of the injection.

Disruption of translation of the tyramine receptor by DsiRNA also modulated expression of latent inhibition.

This experiment was identical to that shown in Figure 3A, B, except injections were performed with a mixture of Dsi Amtyr1RNA (dsRNA; arrow) 24 hr prior to behavioral training and testing. The control for this experiment was a scrambled sequence of the Amtyr1 RNA, Dsiscr (scr). (A) After treatment with Dsiscr (N = 17) or DsiRNA (N = 19) and familiarization to air, acquisition to both odors was significant across trials (X2 = 62.7, 7, p << 0.01). There was also a significant effect of injection (X2 = 8.8, 1, p < 0.01). However, the odor × injection interaction was not significant. (B) Same as in A, except familiarization was to odor (Dsiscr (N = 17) DsiRNA (N = 13)). The injection × odor interaction was significant (X2 = 7.8, 1, p < 0.01). Quantitative PCR analysis of Amtyr1 mRNA levels in brains revealed lower levels of mRNA in DsiAmtyr1 injected animals (0.046 ± 0.006) than in Dsiscr injected animals (0.142 ± 0.028).

Injection of Amtyr1 DsiRNA produced the same effects as yohimbine. After familiarization to air as a control, both groups of foragers learned the association of both odors (X2 = 62.7, 7, p << 0.01; Figure 4A), although there was a slight decrement in response rate in DsiRNA injected animals (X2 = 62.7, 7, p << 0.01; see discussion below). In contrast, after familiarization to one of the odors, learning of both the novel and familiar odors was poor in the Amtyr1 DsiRNA injected group (Figure 4B). But expression of latent inhibition was normal – that is responses to the novel odor exceeded the responses to the familiar odor in the DsiScr group. As before the interaction between odor and injection was significant (X2 = 7.8, 1, p < 0.01).

In conclusion, both behavioral experiments support the hypothesis that Amtyr1 affects expression of latent inhibition without affecting excitatory conditioning. The results are dependent on unreinforced odor presentation, because that was the only difference between Figure 3A–C and between Figure 4A, B. However, the results at first glance seemed counterintuitive. Blockade and disruption of Amtyr1 did not attenuate latent inhibition by, for example, increasing the responsiveness to the familiar odor. Instead, treatment with yohimbine or Amtyr1 DsiRNA reduced responsiveness to the novel odor. This result is consistent with Amtyr1 modulating inhibition involved in, for example, identified inhibitory processes in the antennal lobes and/or the mushroom bodies (Linster et al., 2005). Specifically, and as we propose below, it would prevent the inhibition from becoming too strong, and possibly keep it at a set point between very strong and very weak.

Disruption of Amtyr1 signaling affects neural codes for odors in the antennal lobe

Because of this intriguing result, we performed additional experiments to investigate the mechanism in more detail. Our prior studies of odor coding identified neural manifestations of latent inhibition in early synaptic processing of the antennal lobes of the honey bee brain (Lei et al., 2022; Locatelli et al., 2013). Familiarization to an odor X caused a mixture of a novel odor N and X to become much more like N (Locatelli et al., 2013). That is, neural information about familiar odors like X is filtered out of mixtures. Furthermore, responses to any novel odor are enhanced after familiarization to X (Lei et al., 2022), which is a form of novelty detection. These effects in the antennal lobes could arise because of expression of AmTYR1 in presynaptic terminals of sensory axons in the honey bee antennal lobes (Sinakevitch et al., 2017), where activation of AmTYR1 would decrease cAMP levels (Blenau et al., 2000) and likely decrease release of acetylcholine at synapses.

We therefore chose to analyze the effect of yohimbine treatment on odor processing in the antennal lobes by recording electrophysiological responses to odors prior to and after familiarization in combination with yohimbine treatment. We used yohimbine in these experiments because of the more rapid onset (minutes vs hours) compared to DsiRNA treatment. This first experiment did not employ familiarization to odor. Prior to yohimbine treatment, recordings from 71 units across 4 animals revealed responses to odors that ranged from no detectable change in spike activity with odor presentation to a robust increase in spiking activity (Figure 5A). After yohimbine treatment, responses decreased, although spiking activity was still detectable (Figure 5B). This decrease in response is consistent with AmTYR1 being involved in regulation of inhibition in networks of the antennal lobe, assuming most recorded units that showed a decrease were Projection Neurons (PNs). In our previous use of this technique approximately 45% of recorded units were PNs (Lei et al., 2022). Olfactory Receptor Neuron (ORN) spikes do not register on the electrodes. Hypothetically at least, when AmTYR1 is blocked by yohimbine, excitation of inhibitory networks in the antennal lobe increases and drives down PN responses.

Yohimbine disrupts processing in the honey bee antennal lobe.

(A, B) Perfusion of yohimbine solution (50 µM in physiological saline) into honey bee head capsule caused antennal lobe units to decrease response magnitude to odor stimuli (2-octanone and 1-hexanol) in general. Odor was delivered through a solenoid valve that was open at time zero and lasted for 4 s. (C) In control experiments where yohimbine was not applied, most of the units were responsive to both hexanol and octanone, but 39% were biased toward octanone (purple dots above the diagonal line), that is showing stronger response to octanone than to hexanol. During the familiarization protocol, these units were familiarized to hexanol 40 times with 1-min interval (arrow down) and were tested again with hexanol and octanone 10 min after the last odor stimulation in the familiarization phase. The test results show 54% of units responded more strongly to octanone (orange dots), which is a novel odor in this protocol. The 15% increase is statistically significant (McNemar test with Yates’s correction, df = 1, Chi-square = 5.939, p < 0.02) (asterisks on purple and orange bars, N = 99). (D) When the familiarization protocol was used with saline versus yohimbine perfusion, the response bias toward novel odor was disrupted, showing a significant decrease in comparison with the familiar odor (McNemar test with Yates’s correction, df = 1, Chi-square = 11.13, p < 0.001) (asterisks on gray bars, N = 56).

We then evaluated whether continuous perfusion of the brain with saline or yohimbine during odor familiarization would interrupt how latent inhibition is manifested in the antennal lobe by potentiation of responses to novel odors, as we have reported (Lei et al., 2022). Indeed, yohimbine treatment modified how neurons respond to novelty. Using the same familiarization protocol as in Figures 3 and 4, but under conditions of saline perfusion, we found that 39% of units (N = 99) responded more strongly to the novel odor before the familiarization to an odor (Figure 5C, purple dots in upper panel; purple bar in Figure 5D). After familiarization, this percentage increased significantly to 54% (Figure 5C, orange dots in lower panel; orange bar in Figure 5D) (McNemar test with Yates’s correction, df = 1, Chi-square = 5.939, p < 0.02). Hence, familiarization increased bias toward the novel odor in neurons that were more responsive to that odor to begin with, which is consistent with our earlier results (Lei et al., 2022). In different experiments where yohimbine was perfused, the familiarization protocol not only did not increase bias toward the novel odor, it significantly decreased the original bias from 49% (N = 56) to 14% (Figure 5D, gray bars) (McNemar test with Yates’s correction, df = 1, Chi-square = 11.13, p < 0.001), suggesting that yohimbine interrupted this neural manifestation of latent inhibition in the antennal lobes.

The tyramine/octopamine ratio in the brain is also associated with latent inhibition

A recent report implicated the release of dopamine in driving reward seeking behavior (Huang et al., 2022). In order to evaluate whether dopamine might be involved in latent inhibition, and whether change in release of octopamine and/or tyramine might contribute to our behavioral results, we reanalyzed previously published data (Cook et al., 2019) on levels of dopamine, serotonin, octopamine, and tyramine in individual brains of 81 foragers collected from an unselected genetic background used for selection of lines for expression of latent inhibition. The foragers were collected as ‘scouts’ or ‘recruits’. Scouts were defined as the first bees to explore a new landscape into which their colony had been moved. Recruits were defined as foragers that were exploiting resources once they were found. All scouts and recruits were trained for latent inhibition in the laboratory, and then classified as to whether they showed strong or weak latent inhibition based on learning a novel and familiar odor (Cook et al., 2019).

Of the biogenic amines (Figure 6A, B), only tyramine showed differences between scouts and recruits (see Cook et al., 2019 for methods and a more complete analysis of these data). Differences in dopamine or serotonin levels were not significant. For the current purpose, we reanalyzed the data to focus on the ratios of tyramine to octopamine and dopamine to serotonin (serotonin was used a reference for dopamine levels in Huang et al., 2022). Scouts that showed strong latent inhibition also had significantly lower ratio of tyramine to octopamine than recruits, and that ratio was also lower than scouts and recruits that showed weak latent inhibition (Figure 6C, D). There were no significant differences in the dopamine to serotonin ratios. Thus, there is an interaction of tyramine and octopamine production with behavioral division of foraging labor and expression of latent inhibition. However, dopamine, serotonin, and their ratios do not appear to be involved in latent inhibition.

Biogenic amine levels in individual brains of scout and recruit foragers that expressed strong or weak latent inhibition.

(A, B) Absolute levels of octopamine (blue) and tyramine (green) and of dopamine (red) and serotonin (yellow) in individual forager brains. (C) Ratios of tyramine/octopamine. In foragers that exhibited strong latent inhibition, the ratio was significantly lower in scouts (N = 25) than recruits (N = 13) (Wilcoxon W = 56.0, p < 0.05). Ratios did not differ in scouts (N = 24) and recruits (N = 19) that exhibited weak latent inhibition (p > 0.05). (D) Ratios of dopamine/serotonin did not differ in either the strong or weak groups (p > 0.05). Sample sizes the same as in C.

Discussion

Our results have identified genetic and neural underpinnings that modulate an important form of learning and memory in the brain. All animals need to learn about stimuli in their environment. Latent inhibition is important for redirecting limited attention capacity away from unimportant, inconsequential stimuli and refocusing it toward novel stimuli about which the animal knows little or nothing. Two independent QTL mapping studies have now identified the genetic locus that contains Amtyr1 as important for regulating individual variation in attention (Chandra et al., 2001). There are other loci in the genome that show associations with the behavior, and there are also other unidentified genes in the same locus. Nevertheless, our manipulation of Amtyr1 function using both pharmacology and DsiRNA treatments confirm its association with behavioral expression of latent inhibition.

There are a few ideas that need to be kept in focus at this point in our understanding of Amtyr1. First, it is not a latent inhibition gene. Instead, it is a gene that has broad pleiotropic effects on foraging-related behaviors that include its effect on expression of latent inhibition. In that sense it has major effects on a broader behavioral syndrome that includes effects on sucrose sensitivity (Pankiw et al., 2001; Thamm et al., 2017; Scheiner et al., 2017), preferences for nectar and/or pollen (Page et al., 2000), behavioral caste differences (Scheiner et al., 2014), reproductive physiology (Wang et al., 2020), and learning (Chandra et al., 2000). The model we propose below, in which Amtyr1 acts as a gain control on inputs to neural networks, could potentially explain how Amtyr1 can have such broad effects.

Second, the effects of Amtyr1 specifically on expression of latent inhibition likely arise by combining its expression in sensory as well as more central areas of the brain. That is, it is unlikely that there is a single locus in the brain that underlies latent inhibition. We have shown in honey bees (Sinakevitch et al., 2017), for example, that AmTYR1 is on presynaptic terminals of Olfactory Sensory Neuron axons in the antennal lobes, where they provide cholinergic excitation to dendrites of Local GABAergic Inhibitory Interneurons (LN) and PNs (Figure 7A). AmTYR1 is also on presynaptic terminals of PN axons that terminate in and also provide excitatory cholinergic inputs to the mushroom body calyces. In the antennal lobe, where our electrophysiological and imaging studies have focused (Lei et al., 2022; Locatelli et al., 2013; Fernandez et al., 2009; Locatelli et al., 2016), familiarization to an odor causes the neural representation of a mixture that contains the familiar odor to become more like novel odors in the mixture (Locatelli et al., 2013). Additionally, it potentiates the response to the novel odor (Lei et al., 2022). We assume, but have yet to show experimentally, that this bias combines with how AmTYR1 affects processing in the mushroom bodies, where olfactory information converges with information from other sensory modalities. These higher-order effects of AmTYR1 could underlie individual differences among genetic lines selected in the laboratory for odor-based latent inhibition when they show differential attention to sensory stimuli associated with feeders when tested in free flying conditions in the field (Cook et al., 2020).

Hypothetical model of how Amtyr1 could modulate hebbian plasticity inhibition to modulate latent inhibition.

(A) Circuitry of two glomeruli (A has been adapted from Figure P1 from Das et al., 2011) that underlies latent inhibition (habituation) in the fruit fly antennal lobe, and which was also proposed via a computational model to underlie changes in antennal lobe responses to familiar and novel odors in the honey bee (Locatelli et al., 2013). The only addition here is incorporation of Amtyr1 receptors on Olfactory Receptor Neuron axon terminals (Sinakevitch et al., 2017). In the fruit fly (Das et al., 2011), ORNs release Ach (purple) to coactivate Projection Neurons (PNs) and Local GABAergic Inhibitory Interneurons (LNs), which both express ACh receptors. LNs release both GABA (red) and glutamate (green) onto synapses with PNs. NMDA receptors on PNs potentiate the LN/PN synapses via a retrograde signal (green arrows) to LNs to hypothetically increase the release of GABA. This hebbian plasticity increases inhibition of PNs by LNs and thus decreases excitation of the PN. LN/PN coactivation in other glomeruli is either nonexistent (e.g. Das et al., 2011), too low to produce potentiation of the LN/PN synapse, or strong enough to produce inhibition to odors other than the familiar odor (dashed green arrow). AmTYR1 receptors on presynaptic terminals of ORNs (Sinakevitch et al., 2017) are shown as black triangles. Here, we do not show the source for tyramine. We assume it could be from the VUM neuron, which has terminals in the cortex of every glomerulus, where ORN terminals overlap with PN and LN dendrites (Sinakevitch et al., 2013). (B–D) Increasing activation of AmTYR1 (pink triangles) progressively decreases release of ACh and lowers coactivation of LNs and PNs. Decreased coactivation reaches a threshold (D) below which it fails to modify the LN/PN synapse, although ACh release might still activate the glomeruli. Graphs inset in each figure show the hypothetical relationship between activation of AmTYR1 (x-axis) verses LTP-based hebbian plasticity (y-axis; open and filled circles indicate low and high LTP, respectively). Low activation of AmTYR1 produces high coactivation-based LTP (B) and vice versa (D). Arrows show the hypothetical point on the LTP curve that represents LTP in each figure. Gray lines represent the hypothetical acquisition levels to novel (solid) and familiar (dashed) odors given the strength of hebbian plasticity in each figure. For these lines, the x-axis would be ‘Trial’ and y-axis ‘Percent proboscis extension’, as in Figures 3 and 4. (E) Hypothetical relationship between overlapping odor coding, Amtyr1 activity and LTP across three ORN types in the antennal lobe. ORNs x and y show coding with different levels of activity (red, yellow, blue high to no activity) for odors X and Y. Disruption of Amtyr1 increases activity in x and y but not in a third ORN(z), which shows no activity to either odor. LTP is generated whenever activity reaches a ‘red’ threshold.

The precise relationship of Amtyr1 to latent inhibition is different from what is normally expected from disruption of a gene that underlies a behavior. We expected that disruption of Amtyr1 function would reduce or eliminate latent inhibition; that is, learning about a familiar odor (X) would rise to equal learning about the novel odor. Instead, the response to the novel odor was reduced to equal that to the familiar odor. This reduction was specific to familiarization treatment, so it is dependent on plasticity. It cannot be explained by nonspecific – for example toxic – effects of treatment, because the same treatments did not reduce to the same extent excitatory conditioning in the absence of familiarization to an odor. Moreover, the same effect was evident using two very different means for disruption of Amtyr1 signaling.

We propose that Amtyr1 modulates neural plasticity in the antennal lobes and mushroom bodies that reduces attention to a familiar odor. Amtyr1 maintains coactivation of LNs and PNs in the antennal lobe at a set point between the extremes where it becomes too strong (e.g. when Amtyr1 is disrupted) or too weak (Amtyr1 strongly activated). Given that activation of Amtyr1 reduces cAMP levels, it would be expected that its activation would reduce excitability of axon terminals. Hypothetically then, activation of Amtyr1 could reduce excitatory drive of post-synaptic processes on PNs and LNs in, for example, the antennal lobes, and possibly between PN axons and intrinsic and GABAergic extrinsic neurons of the mushroom bodies (Sinakevitch et al., 2017).

A model of how Amtyr1 could modulate inhibition in antennal lobe networks

We can now propose a model for how Amtyr1 could act in the antennal lobes, and possibly also as an important component for regulating latent inhibition in distributed networks in the mushroom body. The model would have to explain why air (mechanosensory) stimulation alone does not reduce subsequent acquisition to odors (Figures 3A and 4A) as much as familiarization to an odor (Figures 3B, C, 4B). Mechanosensory stimulation produces fast, transient responses in antennal lobe glomeruli, whereas odor stimulation produces more robust, longer lasting responses (Tuckman et al., 2021a; Tuckman et al., 2021b). These differences in response could underlie the difference in response to air versus odor in our analyses, particularly in driving activity dependent plasticity at LN-to-PN synapses that we describe below.

We propose that the Amtyr1-based effects specific to odor familiarization occur by amplifying hebbian plasticity between PNs and LNs in the antennal lobe networks (Figure 7A). A computational model of the honey bee antennal lobe previously identified hebbian plasticity at Local GABAergic Inhibitory Interneuron (LN) synapses onto PNs as the most likely locus of plasticity to give rise to the observed biasing of an odor mixture to be less like a familiar odor and more like a novel odor (Locatelli et al., 2013). If ORy in Figure 7A is not activated by an odor (X) that activates ORx, then, after familiarization to X, a novel odor that activates ORy would be better able to suppress X (via lateral inhibition) in a mixture because of strengthened LN-to-PNx synapses (see schematic in Figure 7 of Locatelli et al., 2013). A potentiated novel odor would strengthen this effect. Work with fruit flies also showed that hebbian plasticity at the same synapses underlies odor habituation (Das et al., 2011; the same process as latent inhibition just differently named).

We now use the same model framework (see schematic in Figure 7 of Locatelli et al., 2013) to propose how Amtyr1 could affect neural networks in the antennal lobe and mushroom bodies. In our new model (Figure 7A–E), as in Locatelli et al., 2013, coactivation of PNs and LNs via excitation from OR axon terminals would produce plasticity at the LN-to-PN synapses. Low activation of AmTYR1 (Figure 7A, B) would lead to strong input from sensory axon terminals that would maximally activate LNs and PNs, thus leading to strong hebbian plasticity at LN-to-PN synapses. That is, it would lead to the strong inhibition of PNs in our manipulations that blocked or disrupted AmTYR1 signaling. Our model represents new now testable hypotheses. At moderate levels (Figure 7C) we propose that this plasticity could give rise to normal latent inhibition in our high attention genetic lines just as it does in fruit flies. Strong activation of AmTYR1 would weaken the activity and reduce or prevent plasticity (Figure 7D), and hence lead to learning about both the novel and familiar odors (such as in our low attention genetic lines that do not show strong latent inhibition; Chandra et al., 2000). In this latter case, activation of the antennal lobe and mushroom bodies by odors might be too low to induce LTP (Figure 7E; all loci would be below red) but still high enough to support odor detection, discrimination, and learning.

Furthermore, combinatorial coding of odors with disruption of AmTYR1 signaling might cause generalization of latent inhibition to novel odors, as we have observed. Many of the monomolecular odorants that have been used to study olfaction and olfactory learning in honey bees have neural activity patterns that partially overlap (Paoli and Galizia, 2021), such as with the representations for hexanol and 2-octanone. For each odor, PNs in a few of the 160+ glomeruli of the antennal lobe are highly activated, and a subset of other PNs are activated to a lesser degree. Hypothetically at least, if the familiar odor activates some of the ORs from glomeruli that also code for the novel odor, which is likely, then coactivation of those PNs with lateral inhibition could cause hebbian plasticity at those synapses too. Under normal circumstances the excitation of those ORs might be too low to potentiate inhibition (Figure 7C–E). But when AmTYR1 signaling is too low or disrupted (Figure 7A, B), ORN-driven coactivation of PNs and LNs would increase enough to drive the plasticity and reduce responses to novel odors (Figures 3B, C, 4B,, 7E). In this case, the discriminability of familiar and novel odors could be reduced or eliminated by the Hebbian plasticity.

We have linked expression of latent inhibition to hebbian plasticity in synapses from inhibitory LNs to PNs in the antennal lobe. Although any behavioral phenomenon likely arises from distributed neural networks in the brain, we focused on the effect of familiarization in the antennal lobes because of our prior analyses of odor processing and latent inhibition there in the honey bee (Locatelli et al., 2013), and because of reports of latent inhibition in the same networks in the fruit fly (Das et al., 2011). We do not specifically identify the type of LN represented in Figure 7, but we speculate that it would belong to the group of heteroLNs (Fonta et al., 1993), which receive excitatory inputs in one glomerulus and broadly transmit inhibition across glomeruli. Computational modeling suggests that the interglomerular connectivity of heteroLNs should be based on ‘functional networks’ defined by overlapping glomerular activity patterns to similar odors (Linster et al., 2005). However, Figure 7 only represents a minimal part of the network that we feel is needed to convey a hypothetical modulation of hebbian plasticity. It will be useful to consider the broader network as represented in Sinakevitch et al., 2017 to more clearly understand how AmTYR1 functions in the antennal lobe, and how it may function in the calyces of the mushroom bodies as well.

We show in Figure 5 that treatment with yohimbine to block AmTYR1 reduced responses to odor, which is consistent with increased excitation from ORN axon terminals driving inhibition, as represented in Figure 7. In fact, this reduction (in the antennal lobe and possibly the mushroom bodies) could be the reason for slightly lower acquisition in Figure 4A under dsRNA treatment. If true, the reduction in unit responsiveness did not completely block excitatory conditioning to odors or the expected potentiation after latent inhibition treatment.

We show the effect of odor familiarization on activity recorded from the antennal lobe as a potentiation of the response to a novel odor, which is consistent with our earlier report (Lei et al., 2022). AmTYR1 block, when coupled to familiarization, decreased responses to the novel odor relative to the potentiation normally observed in controls. Although we show that block of potentiation after familiarization depends on activation state of AmTYR1, we do not, and at this point for lack of data we cannot, represent this mechanism in Figure 7. Potentiation could occur via an as yet unknown process intrinsic to the antennal lobe neural networks (Sinakevitch et al., 2017). Alternatively, it could occur via identified feedback pathways to the antennal lobe (Kirschner et al., 2006; Hu et al., 2010) from neural mechanisms in the mushroom bodies that are known to produce potentiation to novel stimuli in fruit flies (Hattori et al., 2017). Under normal circumstances AmTYR1 is functional and moderating the hebbian plasticity at LN-to-PN synapses at levels consistent with Figure 7C, D, where novel odors are learned well (likely aided by potentiation). Blocking or disrupting AmTYR1 puts the network in a state consistent with Figure 7B, where responses to both types of odors are affected by hebbian plasticity at LN-to-PN synapses – including potentiated novel odors given the overlap in sensory representations.

It remains to be determined what the source for tyramine could be, and which of the local interneuron types might be the ones mediating latent inhibition in the antennal lobes. VUM neurons are an obvious possibility for the source of tyramine, since tyramine is a direct precursor to octopamine released by VUM neurons (Roeder, 2005). However, this hypothesis would depend on tyramine being released at almost constant, low levels without stimulation of VUM by taste receptors sensitive to sugars.

Finally, we have presented a heuristic, verbal model designed to summarize what we know about where Amtyr1 is in the brain, how Amtyr1 works by reducing cAMP levels, and how it could interact with established mechanisms of Hebbian plasticity between PNs and LNs that underlie latent inhibition. We feel it can predict the two natural behavioral phenotypes we find within honey bee colonies as well as the experimental results of disruption of Amtyr1 function. But this prediction lies on testable assumptions. For example, we assume that the level of LTP that develops will increase with increases in excitation gated by Amtyr1. How well our model works might also depend on a nonlinear thresholding function for coactivation that drives Hebbian plasticity (AmTYR1–LTP relationships and expected learning curves shown in Figure 7B–E). These and other parameters will need to be investigated both experimentally and computationally to more fully evaluate how the model applies to antennal lobe and mushroom body function, and whether and under what conditions it will work.

Ideas and speculation: gain control and modulator ratios as modes of action

The modulatory role that we propose for Amtyr1 could help to explain its broad pleiotropic effects on many different behaviors. We propose that AmTYR1 acts as a kind of gain control to regulate activity in any neural network it is providing inputs to. Differing degrees of Amtyr1 activation in different neural circuits in the central or peripheral nervous system might regulate activity in those circuits to drive behaviors in one direction or the other; for example, toward high or low sensitivities to sucrose (Scheiner et al., 2017), preferences for pollen versus nectar (Hunt et al., 1995), and states of worker reproductive physiology (Wang et al., 2020).

Box 1

Important questions that need to be addressed in honey bees and other animal models, such as the fruit fly, and in computational models:

  • To what extent is tyramine constantly released at a background level, such that it modulates activity of AmTYR1?

  • What is the balance of octopamine and tyramine during odor stimulation and when the odor is associated with reinforcement?

  • How does the action of AmTYR1 in distributed networks, such as the antennal lobes and mushroom bodies, coordinate to produce behavioral expression of latent inhibition (Figure 7)?

  • How is amtyr1 activity regulated by other genes in a network, and by epigenetic factors in the environment?

  • Can the gain control model for amtyr1 be extended to account for pleiotropic effects on other behaviors?

Our model for the antennal lobes and mushroom bodies is reminiscent of recent analogous findings involving gain control in select forms of mammalian learning (Fu et al., 2014; Fu et al., 2015). Cholinergic regulation of a disinhibitory circuit within the mouse visual cortex has been shown to regulate cortical gain control, plasticity, and learning. Understanding the dynamic mechanisms underlying network modulation across multiple model organisms may shed light on robust and similar circuit motifs for various behaviors.

We were initially drawn to Amtyr1 because of its relationship potentially to the release of tyramine by identified VUM neurons, which have been implicated in excitatory conditioning through release of octopamine (Farooqui et al., 2003; Hammer, 1993). VUM neurons must make tyramine in the process of making octopamine, and they likely release both biogenic amines. In particular, the dynamic balance between octopamine and tyramine is important for regulating insect behaviors (Kononenko et al., 2009; Schützler et al., 2019). It is intriguing to now propose and eventually test whether a balance between octopamine and tyramine release from VUM neurons is critical for driving attention in one direction or another depending on association with reinforcing contexts. In this model, activation of VUM neurons would release octopamine to drive excitatory association between odor and reinforcement. At the same time, release of tyramine would suppress excitatory drive onto inhibition. Both processes could synergistically drive the association. Furthermore, if there is a low level of background tyramine release from VUM when unstimulated, it would explain why in the Amtyr1 DsiRNA injected group in Figure 4A responded slightly lower than the Dsiscr control group.

Interestingly, we have identified a potential interaction in the ratio of tyramine to octopamine between foraging role (scouts vs recruits) and expression of latent inhibition. The lower tyramine-to-octopamine ratios in scouts would potentially activate this receptor even less that it would normally be, yielding stronger inhibition according to the model described above. Further analyses are needed to test this prediction in more detail and evaluate its role in the foraging ecology of honey bees.

Finally, why do individuals in colonies under quasi-natural conditions differ in expression of latent inhibition, and presumably in the functioning of Amtyr1? We have used this naturally occurring and selectable genetic variation to establish colonies composed of different mixtures of genotypes (Cook et al., 2020; Smith and Cook, 2020). The mixture of genotypes in the colony affects whether and how quickly colonies discover new resources via an attention-like process operant in individual foragers (Smith and Cook, 2020). We have therefore proposed that genetic variation leading to colony level variation in Amtyr1 expression represents a balance between exploration for and exploitation of resources. The precise balance of genotypes would give colonies flexibility to respond to changing resource distributions over the life of the colony.

Materials and methods

Selection of honey bee lines for differences in latent inhibition

Request a detailed protocol

We established high and low latent inhibition lines by conditioning drone and virgin queen honey bees to odors in three different conditioning phases (Chandra et al., 2000). The first phase involved selection of drones or queens that could successfully learn to associate an odor with sucrose reinforcement, which established that the honey bees were motivated to learn. This initial excitatory conditioning does not affect generation or expression of latent inhibition. The second ’familiarization’ phase involved 40 unreinforced odor exposures for 4 s each; this new odor (black box; X) was different and discriminable from the first odor. The third and final phase involved conditioning honey bees to the now familiar odor X associated with sucrose reinforcement in a way that normally produces robust associative conditioning (Bitterman et al., 1983). Strong latent inhibition should slow the rate of learning to X. Drones and queens that exhibited this ‘inhibitor’ phenotype (defined as zero or one response to X over six conditioning trials) (Chandra et al., 2000) were mated using standard instrumental insemination techniques (Cobey et al., 2013) for honey bees to create a high (inhibitor) latent inhibition line. Drones and queens that learned X quickly (five positive responses to X over six trials) were also mated to produce a low (noninhibitor) latent inhibition line. Our previous studies have shown that worker progeny from inhibitor and noninhibitor matings showed significant correlation in expression of latent inhibition to their parents (Chandra et al., 2000; Ferguson et al., 2001).

Recombinant drones

Request a detailed protocol

Male honey bees (drones) were produced from a cross between genetic lines selected for high and low expression of latent inhibition (Chandra et al., 2000; Latshaw and Smith, 2005). Hybrid queens were reared from a cross of a queen from the inhibitor line instrumentally inseminated (Cobey, 2007) with sperm from a single drone from the noninhibitor line. These queens were then allowed to mate naturally to increase longevity in a colony. Natural mating involves mating with several different drones. However, since drones arise from unfertilized eggs, the haploid (drone) genotype involves only recombination of the genotypes of the high and low lines in the hybrid queen. A single hybrid queen was then selected to produce drones. Sealed drone brood from the hybrid queen was placed in a small nucleus colony. Queen excluder material (wire mesh that does not permit the passage of queens or drones) was used to confine the emerging drones to the upper story. Upon emergence, drones were individually marked on the thorax with enamel paint for later identification, and then marked drones were co-fostered in a single outdoor colony until collected for behavioral conditioning.

Mature drones were collected from the colony upon returning from mating flights during the late afternoon the day before testing. Returning drones gathered on a piece of queen excluder material blocking the colony entrance and were put into small wooden boxes with queen excluder material on each side. They were then fed a small amount of honey and placed in a queenless colony overnight. The following morning drones were secured in a plastic harness using a small piece of duct tape (2 mm × 20 mm) placed between the head and the thorax (Bitterman et al., 1983). All drones were then kept at room temperature for 2 hr. They were then screened for their motivation to feed by lightly touching a small drop of 2.0 M sucrose solution to the antennae. Drones that extended their proboscis were selected for training.

Foragers

Request a detailed protocol

Female pollen foragers (workers) were captured at the colony entrance as described above. Each bee was chilled to 4°C, restrained in a harness and fed to satiation with 1.0 M sucrose. The next day bees were tested for motivation by stimulation of their antennae with 2.0 M sucrose; bees that extended their proboscis were used in experiments shown in Figures 3 and 4.

Conditioning protocols

Familiarization

Request a detailed protocol

Familiarization to the odor was done as described in Chandra et al., 2010. Restrained bees were placed in individual stalls where a series of valves regulated odor delivery via a programmable logic controller (PLC) (Automation Direct). Hexanol and 2-octanone were used either as pure odorants or diluted to 2.0 M in hexanes with odor treatments counterbalanced across animals. Odor cartridges were made by applying 3.0 μl of odorant onto a piece of filter paper (2.5 × 35 mm) and inserting the filter paper into a 1-ml glass syringe. The odor cartridge was then connected to a valve regulated by the PLC that shunted air through the cartridge for 4 s once the automated sequence was initiated. Odor preexposure in all experiments involved 40 unreinforced presentations of odor for 4 s using a 5 min (Figure 1) or 30 s (Figure 3) intertrial interval (ITI). All odor cartridges were changed for fresh ones after every 10 uses to avoid odor depletion (Smith and Burden, 2014). The use of pharmacological treatment necessitated the use of a shorter ITI to avoid having the drug wear off before the end of preexposure. Our previous studies have revealed that latent inhibition is robust over this range of ITIs and odor concentrations (Chandra et al., 2010).

PER conditioning

Request a detailed protocol

All PER learning paradigms used for testing used a 5-min ITI. An acquisition trial consisted of a 4-s presentation of an odor, the conditioned stimulus (CS, black or gray bars), followed by presentation of a 0.4-μl drop of 1.0 M sucrose solution, the unconditioned stimulus (US, triangles in Figures 1, 3,, 4). Three seconds after onset of the CS the US was delivered using a Gilmont micrometer syringe. The US was initially delivered by gently touching the antennae to elicit proboscis extension and subsequent feeding. Once a bee began to extend its proboscis at the onset of CS delivery, it was no longer necessary to touch the antennae prior to feeding.

We used two different procedures for testing latent inhibition after familiarization. For evaluation of recombinant drones (Figure 1), subjects were conditioned to the familiarized odor (X) as the CS over 6 forward pairing trials. The second procedure (Figures 3 and 4) involved use of a within animal control protocol. After familiarization all subjects received equivalent PER conditioning to two odors, one was the familiarized odor (X) and the other was a novel odor (N) that honey bees can easily discriminate from the familiarized odor (Smith and Menzel, 1989). Odors were presented in a pseudorandomized order (NXXNXNNX or XNNXNXXN) across trials such that equal numbers of animals received N or X on the first trial. Pharmacological treatment required the use of a control procedure involving familiarization to air to evaluate the degree to which expression of excitatory conditioning was affected by drug treatment (Figures 3A and 4A).

Linkage analysis

Request a detailed protocol

Upon completion of the training paradigm, 523 drones were placed in individual 1-ml micro-centrifuge tubes and stored at −70°C. Genomic DNA extraction followed a standard protocol developed for honey bees (Hunt and Page, 1995). For SNP analysis, DNA was selected from 94 drones that exhibited the highest level of latent inhibition (0, 1, 2, or 3 responses over the six test trials) and from another 94 drones that exhibited the lowest level (5 or 6 responses). Analysis of the 188 samples was conducted by Sequenom, Inc, San Diego, CA.

The linkage map was built with a set of 311 SNP markers. The list of selected markers was provided by Olav Rueppell from previous studies examining the genetic architecture of foraging behavior and sucrose response thresholds (Rueppell et al., 2006; Rueppell et al., 2004). The 74 SNPs segregating in our mapping population were used for a QTL analysis. Map positions for markers in linkage group one were determined using the Apis mellifera 4.0 genome. The software MultiPoint 1.2 (http://www.mulitqtl.com) was used to determine the actual recombination frequencies for markers in linkage group 1. Recombination frequencies were then converted to centiMorgans using the Kosambi mapping function. The actual mapping distances in our mapping population were used in the QTL analysis. QTL analysis was performed with MapQTL 4.0. Interval mapping and MQM mapping revealed one significant QTL. Genomewide significant thresholds for p < 0.05 (LOD = 2.6) and p < 0.01 (LOD = 3.2) were determined using an implemented permutation test (1000 runs).

Pharmacological and DsiAmTyr1 treatments

Request a detailed protocol

Yohimbine hydrochloride (Sigma) was diluted to 10−4 M in saline (5 mM KCl, 10 mM NaH2PO4, pH 7.8). We chose a concentration of yohimbine that has been shown to be effective in our previous study of its effect on honey bee behavior (Fussnecker et al., 2006). One μl of drug or saline alone was injected into the brain through the median ocellus using a Hamilton syringe (Hamilton; Reno, NV). Training began 15 min after injection, as this time has been shown to be effective in other drug studies using the same methodology (Chandra et al., 2010; Mercer and Menzel, 1982; Menzel et al., 1999).

For DsiRNA studies, we used sequences and protocols developed previously for a study of Amtyr1 receptor distribution in the brain, which in that study were used to show that the anti-Amtyr1 antibodies specifically recognized the receptor (Sinakevitch et al., 2017). We used a Dsi RNA of the AmTyr1 receptor (NCBI Reference Sequence: NM_001011594.1) to knockdown AmTyr1 mRNA receptor in the brain. We used the mixture of three DsiAmTyr1 constructs designed by the tool in IDT technology (Sinakevitch et al., 2017; Table 1). As a control we used a scrambled (dsiScr) version of the Amtyr1 sequence. A 138 nanoliter injection of a 100-µM mixture of dsiAmTyr1 or dsiScr (Nanoinject 2000) was made into the middle ocellus 18–20 hr before behavioral tests. All injections were done blind so that the investigator doing behavioral tests was not aware of the content of the injection. After the tests brains without optic lobes were dissected out and homogenized each in TRIzol (Invitrogen) (N = 27 for bees injected with dsiScr and N = 32 for bees injected with DsiAmTyr1). Then, the total mRNA from each injected brain was extracted separately using the manufacturer’s protocol for TRIzol method (Invitrogen). Contaminating genomic DNA was removed using DNA-free kit (Ambion, AM1906). RNA quantity and purity were evaluated using a NanoDrop (NanoDrop 2000). Expression of AmTyr1 was quantified using QuantiFAST SYBR Green RT-PCR kit (QIAGEN) on Applied Biosystem 7900 cycler (ASU DNA Facilities) with the protocol provided by the kit for a 384-well plate. The primers for quantitative real-time PCR assays were: AmTyr1_F 5′- GTTCGTCGTATGCTGGTTGC-3′, AmTyr1_R 5′- GTAGATGAGCGGGTTGAGGG-3′ and for reference gene AmActin_F 5′- TGCCAACACTGTCCTTTCTG-3′, AmActin_R 5′- AGAATTGACCCACCAATCCA-3′ (Tuzmen et al., 2007).

Table 1
Nucleotide sequences of sense and antisense strands of control DsiSCR and AmTyr1 DsiRNA.
DsiRNASequences
DsiScr5′-GAGUCCUAAGUUAACCAAGUCACAGCA-3′ 3′-CUCAGGAUUCAAUUGGUUCAGUGUCGU-5′
DsiTyr1_N5′-AGCGUGACGUUGGAUUGACGAGAGC-3′ 3′-CCUCGCACUGCAACCUAACUGCUCUCG-5′
DsiTyr1_T15′-CCUGUGCAAAUUGUGGCUAACCUGC-3′ 3′-GUGGACACGUUUAACACCGAUUGGACG-5′
DsiTyr_C5′-CAACGCUUGUUUAUUGCAUCUAUCG-3′ 3′-CCGUUGCGAACAAAUAACGUAGAUAGC-5′

All injections were done blind so that the investigator doing behavioral tests was not aware of the content of the injection.

Electrophysiological recordings from the antennal lobe

Request a detailed protocol

Extracellular recordings were performed in the antennal lobes with a 16-channel probe (NeuroNexus, Ann Arbor, MI). Spike waveforms were digitized with a RZ2 system at a sampling rate of 20 kHz (Tucker-Davis Technologies, Alachua, FL). After a stable recording was achieved, the honey bee preparation was first stimulated with two presentations of each of the following odors: 1-hexanol (Hex) and 2-octanone (Oct). The duration of each pulse was 4 s, and 2 min of recovering time were allowed between two pulses. During the preexposure phase, 40 pulses of Oct were delivered with inter-pulse interval of 60 s, after which 10-min recovery was given before testing. Upon completion of each experiment, extracellular spike waveforms are exported to Offline Sorter program (Plexon Inc, Dallas, TX) which classifies the similar waveforms into individual clusters (units) based on the relatedness of waveforms’ projection onto a 3D space derived from the first three principle components that capture the most variation of the original waveforms. To increase the discriminating power, the original waveforms are grouped in a tetrode configuration, matching the physical design of the recording probe, that is 16 recording sites are distributed in two shanks in a block design of 2 × 4. Each block is called a tetrode. Statistical separation of waveform clusters, representing individual neurons or units, is aided with visual inspection, all implemented in the Offline Sorter program. Once satisfied with the clustering results, the time stamps of waveforms are then exported to Neuroexplorer program (Plexon Inc, Dallas, TX) and Matlab (Mathworks, Natick, MA) for further analysis.

Yohimbine (Millipore-Sigma, St. Louis, MO) was diluted in saline (50 µM), which was perfused into the head capsule through a T-tube switch. Repeated stimulation with Oct started 15 min after perfusion; by then the slowing-down of spiking activities were often noticeable. Care was taken not to introduce any air bubble into the tubing when switching from the syringe containing saline to the syringe containing the yohimbine solution. The water level in the two syringes was intentionally kept the same in order to maintain a similar perfusing rate upon switching. The drug solution was kept flowing through the honey bee preparation until the end of protocol, which usually lasted for about 2 hr. No saline wash was attempted in this protocol due to the long time required for the recording sessions.

Sequencing the Amtyr1 region of the genome

Request a detailed protocol

We studied SNPs in full-genome sequences of eight A. mellifera workers (four high pollen hording and four low pollen hording). For each individual, Illumina short reads were mapped against the A. mellifera genome assembly version 4.5 (Munoz-Torres et al., 2011) using bwa version 0.5.9-r16 (Li and Durbin, 2009). An average 25× genome coverage per individual allowed the identification of high-quality SNPs in each individual against the reference genome. SNPs were identified with SAMtools version 0.1.17-r973:277 (Li et al., 2009) enforcing a minimum quality score of 20 (base call accuracy ≥99%).

Statistical analysis

Request a detailed protocol

To analyze the effects in behavioral experiments, we used a generalized linear model with binomial error distribution and logit transformation to perform a logistic regression. The response variable is binomal (0,1). Trial is an ordered variable. We were most interested in testing the hypothesis that injection of yohimbine and dsiRNA before familiarization treatment would impact latent inhibition, so we focused on the interactions between trial, injection, injection time (before preexposure or before acquisition), and odor (novel or preexposed odor). To explore significant interactions further, we performed a tukey post hoc test using the package emmeans. All analyses were performed in R version 4.2.0 using RStudio version 2022.07.1.

Data availability

All genomic, behavioral, electrophysiological and hplc data are available via Dryad.

The following data sets were generated
    1. Smith B
    (2023) Dryad Digital Repository
    Tyramine and its AmTYR1 receptor modulate attention in honey bees (Apis mellifera).
    https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.gqnk98svb
    1. Gadau J
    2. Smith B
    3. Mustard JA
    4. Sinakewitch I
    5. Cook C
    6. Lei H
    (2023) Dryad Digital Repository
    A tyramine receptor (Amtyr1) modulates attention in honey bees (Apis mellifera): A neural model for behavioral pleiotropy - Amtyr1-SNP genotypes.
    https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.prr4xgxsg

References

    1. Bitterman ME
    2. Menzel R
    3. Fietz A
    4. Schäfer S
    (1983)
    Classical conditioning of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera)
    Journal of Comparative Psychology 97:107–119.
    1. Dickinson A
    (2012) Associative learning and animal cognition
    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 367:2733–2742.
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0220
    1. Heyes C
    (2012) Simple minds: a qualified defence of associative learning
    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 367:2695–2703.
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0217
  1. Book
    1. Mackintosh N
    (1983)
    Conditioning and Associative Learning
    Clarendon Press.
    1. Menzel R
    2. Heyne A
    3. Kinzel C
    4. Gerber B
    5. Fiala A
    (1999)
    Pharmacological dissociation between the reinforcing, sensitizing, and response-releasing functions of reward in honeybee classical conditioning
    Behavioral Neuroscience 113:744–754.
  2. Book
    1. Page RE
    (2013)
    The Mechanisms of Social Evolution
    Boston, MA: Harvard Univ Press.

Decision letter

  1. Matthieu Louis
    Reviewing Editor; University of California, Santa Barbara, United States
  2. Christian Rutz
    Senior Editor; University of St Andrews, United Kingdom
  3. Alison Mercer
    Reviewer; University of Otago, New Zealand
  4. Wolfgang Blenau
    Reviewer; Leipzig University, Germany

Our editorial process produces two outputs: (i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside the preprint for the benefit of readers; (ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Tyramine and its AmTYR1 receptor modulate attention in honey bees (Apis mellifera)" for consideration by eLife.

Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by Matthieu Louis as Reviewing Editor and Christian Rutz as Senior Editor. The following individuals involved in the review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Alison Mercer (Reviewer #1); Wolfgang Blenau (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision letter to help you prepare a revised submission.

Essential revisions:

All reviewers recognize the importance of the findings reported in the manuscript. Some concerns were raised about the interpretation of behavioral and physiological results exclusively through the lens of latent inhibition. It is possible that tyramine controls lateral inhibition in the antennal lobe without necessarily producing latent inhibition. Stating that a disruption of AmTyr1 increases the expression of latent inhibition without affecting appetitive learning (see abstract) does not appear to be fully supported by existing data. The fact that treatment with yohimbine produces a near "anti-bias" against the novelty odor (Figure 5D) highlights the complexity of the underlying regulatory mechanisms. Even if no link can be demonstrated between the function of AmTyr1 and latent inhibition, the results of the manuscript would remain very impactful due to the insight they provide into the potential function of AmTyr1 in the antennal lobe. It is nonetheless essential to address this shortcoming of the manuscript prior to publication.

Two alternatives are envisioned. First, the authors could provide additional experimental evidence supporting the specificity of the effects of AmTyr1 on latent inhibition with limited impact on appetitive learning. This could be achieved, for instance, by testing the effects of yohimbine on a differential conditioning paradigm to evaluate the ability of bees to discriminate between odors upon loss of function of AmTyr1. This experiment is just a suggestion. Other experiments might address this point equally well (or better). The reviewers fully appreciate the amount of work behind the present version of the manuscript. The authors are not expected to add a large body of new experimental data as long as they strengthen their conclusions related to latent inhibition. In the second alternative, the authors could modify their manuscript to acknowledge that the AmTyr1 pathway might regulate lateral inhibition without necessarily affecting latent inhibition. As part of this revision, it would be useful to present a model outlining potential roles for AmTyr1 based on the data presented in this manuscript and elsewhere.

In their revised manuscript, the authors are asked to address the comments of the reviewers about the statistics. They should also correct the color legend of Figure 3.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

General comments: It may be helpful to view these results through the lens of lateral inhibition rather than latent inhibition. Please be clear also about how you interpret the results of your statistical analyses.

P3, L54: reduced? – Figure 1C suggests subsequent learning is delayed rather than reduced.

P5,105: reflex? – PE response.

P6: Is AmTYR1 the only tyramine receptor expressed in the honey bee brain?

Figure 3A: Use of the terms 'familiar' and 'novel' to refer to the two odours tested here is confusing. It would help to clarify on the figure also, that familiarization here is to air, not odour.

P8, L171-2, 179: The legend of Figure 3 suggests saline-treated bees are represented in blue and yohimbine-treated in orange. The opposite is suggested by the key in the figures.

P8, L180: 'familiarized to odor each of the two…… was familiarized..' – sentence?

P9, L190: If the time of year may be important, please specify.

P9, L195: Please explain the rationale here. How do puffs of air impact olfactory information processing in the antennal lobe? For example, do they engage in inhibitory networks?

Figure 3A: If yohimbine is injected immediately prior to conditioning, is there any change in the level of responses to odours? This seems important to test because in Figure 3B yohimbine treatment reduces levels of conditioned responses, whereas in Figure 3C learning in yohimbine-treated animals appears to be completely blocked.

P9, L212: "Injection of yohimbine eliminated the difference in responses to the novel and familiar odors" – yes, but it did so by reducing the responses to the novel odour. Given the variability in levels of responses in controls, it is difficult to determine whether what we see in Figure 3B, C is latent inhibition, or not. In 3B, for example, the acquisition rate of the familiar odour seems to be similar to that of the novel odour. In Figure 3C, there are too few trials to judge. Figure 1B suggests more than 4 trials may be required to show latent inhibition (as opposed to general inhibition) clearly (e.g. compare Figure 3BC; Figure 4B).

P10, L215-218: "This pattern could not arise from blockade of excitatory learning about N [the novel] odor because excitatory learning was unaffected in the air preexposure controls". Is it not more likely that puffs of air do not engage inhibitory circuits in the AL in the same way as puffs of odour?

P10, L219: what evidence suggests blockade of AmTYR1 "increases latent inhibition"? It seems more likely that lateral inhibition is increased and affects all odours.

P10, L222-224 Treatments in this study were given before or after odour familiarization (i.e. prior to acquisition only). Farooqui et al. (2003) examined the effects of treatments given either, prior to acquisition or prior to memory recall. As results presented in Figure 3C (and 4B) suggest blockade of TYR1 inhibits learning of novel as well as familiarized odours, it seems important to provide or refer to evidence showing that OA signalling is not disrupted, either by yohimbine, or by AmTYR1 dsiRNA injection.

P11, L238: The title of Figure 4 is misleading. Neither latent inhibition nor learning is apparent in bees treated with Amtyr1 dsiRNA. Do you mean increased lateral inhibition?

P11, L243-4: A significant effect of injection (treatment) is reported (<0.01). Doesn't this indicate a significant difference overall between response levels in control bees versus bees in which AmTYR1 is knocked down? This would seem consistent with an overall increase in lateral inhibition.

P11, L252: "...a slight decrement in response rate….(p<<0.01….). – slight?

P11, L261: Why was it predicted that disruption of AmTYR1 would attenuate latent inhibition?

P13, Figure 5 title: – what evidence is there here of latent inhibition? Presentation of results described in Figure 5 earlier might help clarify at the outset the magnitude and global nature of the changes induced by compromising the AmTYR1 function. This seems consistent also with increased lateral inhibition, rather than increased latent inhibition.

The results are fascinating. They suggest to me that tyramine is released tonically in the AL providing an essential brake on lateral inhibition.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Line 70ff "… a major locus … maps to a location in the honey bee genome…": I wonder if reference 21 is the correct reference at this point. Scheiner et al. did not carry out a mapping study but found a splice variant of the AmTYR1 receptor. Perhaps reference 24 (Page et al., 2000) would be more appropriate here?

Lines 124-139: This short half-page within the Results section does not refer to the results of the present study but essentially summarizes existing knowledge on the AmTYR1 receptor and VUM neurons in honey bees and other insects. The authors should consider presenting this information in the introduction.

Lines 147/147 "… the tyramine receptor antagonist yohimbine …": Although widely used in insect studies as a tyramine receptor antagonist, the specificity of yohimbine is not absolute. For example, yohimbine is also a high-affinity antagonist of the recently described honey bee α2-adrenergic-like octopamine receptor (reference 31). Yohimbine also has an antagonistic effect on the second tyramine receptor of the honey bee (Reim et al., 2017). From my point of view, this underlines the importance of the use of an alternative approach (DsiAmTyr1 treatment) by the authors. Unfortunately, no more specific antagonists are available either. Nevertheless, in my view, it would be best to point out this possible specificity issue.

Line 562ff "…primers for quantitative real-time PCR …": Can the authors please justify the choice of actin as the reference gene for qPCR? How has the stability of expression of the reference gene been checked?

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

All of my suggestions would be outside the scope of the paper.

I would enjoy seeing profiling of classical hPTMs associated with enhancer and regulatory sites (k27ac, K4m1, K4m3) via ChIP-seq, as well as associated RNA-seq analyses between the different lines or individuals showing variation in latent inhibition, in order to better understand the molecular components of this not directly relevant to the locus; however, this is a 'tall ask' for such a well-done paper.

The statistics were simple because this was appropriate.

For honeybee, the samples were well assessed, validated via dsiRNA and pharmacological methods, and interpretations were appropriately leveraged in light of the data.

I got nothing bar a bunch of genomics that aren't necessary…

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Tyramine and its AmTYR1 receptor modulate attention in honey bees (Apis mellifera)" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by Christian Rutz (Senior Editor) and Matthieu Louis (Reviewing Editor).

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed. Two of the initial three reviewers carefully went through the changes you implemented; the third reviewer was not available anymore. While we remain convinced that the results presented in this manuscript are fundamentally important, we also believe that the interpretation of your experimental data ought to be open to alternative explanations. The main problem is that the conclusions of the work rely on the use of indirect measures of latent inhibition. Presently, the electrophysiology results presented in Figure 5 fall short of unambiguously supporting latent inhibition. It is also difficult to apply the model proposed in Figure 7 to explain the results of Figure 5 (there is a concern about the fact that the original model of Ramaswami and colleagues has been partly distorted). Overall, the conceptual model of Figure 7 appears to bring more confusion than clarifications. These issues should be addressed prior to the publication of the work. We invite you to revise the manuscript along the lines suggested by the two reviewers -- please see their individual reports below.

We agree with the reviewers that reaching a mechanistic understanding of the function of AmTYR1 in the antennal lobe would be beyond the reach of a single study. Given the limitations of the experimental data presented in the manuscript, we ask that you acknowledge the possibility of explanations different from pure latent inhibition in your discussion of the results. Moreover, we recommend the addition of a reciprocal treatment to complete the electrophysiology inspection of Figure 5 (see comments of Reviewer #2). This addition offers an experimentally testable prediction that can be made based on the latent-inhibition model that you are proposing.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. The authors conclude that disruption of Amtyr1 signaling increases the expression of latent inhibition but has little effect on appetitive conditioning (Abstract L29), but neither conclusion is clearly supported by the results presented in Figures3 and 4. Disruption of AmTYR1 reduced response levels (including responses to the novel odor) severely. As a result, latent inhibition could not be evaluated.

2. Previous work from the Smith lab revealed that local neurons (LNs) in the antennal lobes of the bee express octopamine receptors. This elegant work led to their proposal that octopamine inhibits inhibitory LNs in the glomerular core (leading to disinhibition of PNs) and simultaneously blocks excitation in neighboring glomeruli. It seems likely this could interfere with the generation and resilience of latent inhibition. In the experiments outlined here, appetitive learning performance is used to provide an indirect measure of latent inhibition induced by odor familiarization, but one difficulty in using this approach is that stimulation of the antennae with sucrose activates the VUMmx1 neuron (Hammer 1993), which will increase octopamine levels in the antennal lobes. The effects of sensitization and appetitive conditioning are therefore superimposed on effects induced by familiarization. What do the authors predict the outcome of this would be?

3. The model provided in Figure 7 does not seem to represent well the results of the electrophysiological analysis in this study (Figure 5). Disruption of AmTYR1 signalling (in the absence of odor familiarization) caused a dramatic decline in responses to odorants (Figure 5A,B), and rather than promoting latent inhibition, yohimbine treatment decreased odor response biases, and blocked the ability to enhance existing odor biases using familiarization (Figure 5C,D). The model presented in Figure 7, however, predicts that latent inhibition should be strongest when AmTYR1 function is blocked (Figure 7B). Doesn't this suggest something other than latent inhibition might be responsible for the global inhibition observed?

4. The authors suggest that Hebbian plasticity underlying latent inhibition is responsible for observed declines in odor responses (L429-433). As a result of disruption of Amtyr1 signaling, Hebbian plasticity, they argue, could induce a signal strong enough to produce inhibition to odors other than the familiar odor. This is interesting, but the model presented in Figure 7 is confusing and tells us little about how this might occur. The schematic suggests NMDA-receptor signaling in glomerulus X (top) leads to NMDA receptor-signaling in glomerulus Y. However, in glomerulus Y there is likely to be relatively little ORN-mediated excitation of PNs (or LNs). Also, in the lower glomerulus (Y), the retrograde signal (green arrow) appears to go from LN to PN. How would this work?

5. The authors acknowledge clearly that their model is based on a model of habituation in the AL of Drosophila, proposed by Ramaswami and colleagues. However, the authors have made subtle changes to the schematic provided by Twick et al. (2014) that could lead to some confusion. For example, excitatory inputs from ORNs onto PNs and LNs are depicted in the fly model as being distant from the NMDA receptor-mediated signalling proposed to underpin habituation. These synapses appear adjacent to the shaded area, which I assume represents the glomerular core. In the schematic presented in Figure 7, these synapses lie within the shaded area, which I assume now represents the glomerulus as a whole (core plus outer cortex). These differences may seem minor, but they could be misleading.

6. To help explain why AmTYR1 dysfunction gives rise to a global decline in odor responses, it would be helpful to provide a summary of neural networks in the AL of the bee. An excellent schematic presented by Smith and colleagues in an earlier publication (Sinakovitch et al. 2017) would be extremely helpful here. I believe the Sinakovitch model would make it much easier to discuss the results of this study, and their relationship with the fly habituation model.

7. At present, the authors do not comment at all on the unique roles of various subpopulations of LN in the bee or their functional properties. This omission seems odd given the central role LNs play in latent inhibition. Consideration of the functional properties of LNs also suggests alternative explanations for the general decline in odor responses observed in this study -- for example, the potential involvement of homogeneous LNs. Activation of these neurons, which have widefield arborizations throughout the AL, would be predicted to induce lateral inhibition that could potentially provide gain control. This seems highly relevant here, because it would help prevent saturation from the strong inputs generated as a result of compromised Amtyr1 function. I strongly recommend the papers from Rachel Wilson's group on this topic (e.g., Olsen et al. 2010).

In summary, I feel the bulk of the evidence presented in this paper points to an alternative explanation for the dramatic reduction in responses to odors induced by Amtyr1 knockdown. The results could potentially be a consequence of Amtyr1 knockdown inducing large responses that cause saturation in the network. In the absence of familiarization this can be controlled by lateral inhibition, but the process of familiarization, rather than leading to latent inhibition, causes further saturation and as a result, destabilization, which causes profound inhibition of the neural network.

I hope the comments above will be helpful, as intended.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

In the revised version of their manuscript, the authors have responded to many of the reviewers' comments. In particular, they modified the discussion of the data significantly. They introduced a new Figure 7 in order to make it easier for the reader to understand the complex model of the effects of AmTYR1 activation in the antennal lobe. However, I do not find the model very understandable, and, in particular, the results of the electrophysiological recordings shown in Figure 5 are not sufficiently addressed in this model. In an attempt to understand these relations better, I again looked closely at Figure 5C+D of the manuscript. The question I asked myself was what the outcome of a reciprocal experiment would be: How does the number of units (neurons) that are more responsive to octanone change when familiarization is done with octanone instead of hexanol? A drop from 39% to a smaller number would likely be expected. Is that true? In this case, what is the influence of yohimbine injection? If yohimbine prevents the latent inhibition effect, yohimbine injection should prevent a decrease in the number (below 39%) or possibly even cause the number of responding neurons to rise (above 39%). Can this be shown experimentally? Alternatively, does yohimbine lead to a decrease in the number of octanone-biased neurons also in this constellation? This would argue for yohimbine causing a general decrease in the response to odorants. Can these assumptions or the results of the corresponding experiment be reconciled with the model shown in Figure 7? What would the model imply in this case? I hope the authors find my above suggestion constructive and I look forward to their response.

Line 482 "this plasticity it would give rise to": Delete "it".

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83348.sa1

Author response

Essential revisions:

All reviewers recognize the importance of the findings reported in the manuscript. Some concerns were raised about the interpretation of behavioral and physiological results exclusively through the lens of latent inhibition. It is possible that tyramine controls lateral inhibition in the antennal lobe without necessarily producing latent inhibition. Stating that a disruption of AmTyr1 increases the expression of latent inhibition without affecting appetitive learning (see abstract) does not appear to be fully supported by existing data. The fact that treatment with yohimbine produces a near "anti-bias" against the novelty odor (Figure 5D) highlights the complexity of the underlying regulatory mechanisms. Even if no link can be demonstrated between the function of AmTyr1 and latent inhibition, the results of the manuscript would remain very impactful due to the insight they provide into the potential function of AmTyr1 in the antennal lobe. It is nonetheless essential to address this shortcoming of the manuscript prior to publication.

Two alternatives are envisioned. First, the authors could provide additional experimental evidence supporting the specificity of the effects of AmTyr1 on latent inhibition with limited impact on appetitive learning. This could be achieved, for instance, by testing the effects of yohimbine on a differential conditioning paradigm to evaluate the ability of bees to discriminate between odors upon loss of function of AmTyr1. This experiment is just a suggestion. Other experiments might address this point equally well (or better). The reviewers fully appreciate the amount of work behind the present version of the manuscript. The authors are not expected to add a large body of new experimental data as long as they strengthen their conclusions related to latent inhibition. In the second alternative, the authors could modify their manuscript to acknowledge that the AmTyr1 pathway might regulate lateral inhibition without necessarily affecting latent inhibition. As part of this revision, it would be useful to present a model outlining potential roles for AmTyr1 based on the data presented in this manuscript and elsewhere.

We have chosen the second alternative as the means to respond to this commentary. The now extensive modification, esp of the discussion, is highlighted in blue text in the revision and is summarized in a model presented in a new figure 7 in the Discussion. We chose not to use the first option. As we now review in the new paragraph two in the Discussion section, Amtyr1 has been shown to be involved in several different behaviors and physiological process in addition to latent inhibition. A new experiment, e.g. differential conditioning, might just add to this now lengthy list without providing more resolution as to how this gene is acting. We feel we have highlighted this issue now much better than before as a result of this reviewer’s comments.

In their revised manuscript, the authors are asked to address the comments of the reviewers about the statistics. They should also correct the color legend of Figure 3.

Color legend is corrected in Figure 3.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

General comments: It may be helpful to view these results through the lens of lateral inhibition rather than latent inhibition. Please be clear also about how you interpret the results of your statistical analyses.

In regard to this reviewer’s comments on weaknesses, and to this general one, we have made significant edits to the discussion as well as to a few other places in the manuscript. In sum, and as we now extensively elaborate on in the Discussion, we feel that part of the mechanism for latent inhibition is through its effect on Hebbian plasticity that modifies both feed-forward and lateral inhibition. In other words, latent inhibition and lateral/feed-forward inhibition is intertwined such that one cannot be discussed without the other.

P3, L54: reduced? – Figure 1C suggests subsequent learning is delayed rather than reduced.

This is in the introduction in reference to reduction of learning. This reviewer refers to patterns in Figure 1C that appears to show a delay as learning about the familiar odor in ‘Inhibitor’ drones at one end of the curve (blue) shown in Figure 1B lags behind learning about the familiar odor in ‘Noninhibitor’ (green) drones at the right of the distribution in Figure 1B. I would not dispute that learning in ‘inhibitor’ bees will ultimately reach levels of asymptotic responding in noninhibitor bees. But to me ‘reduced’ in the use here refers to any tendency for inhibitor bees to respond less than noninhibitor bees in rate of acquisition and/or in asymptotic levels of responding. And in fact sometimes we see slightly different patterns of responses to novel and familiar odors. That is evident in Figures3 and 4. But in all cases responding to the familiar odor is less than that to the novel odor. The differences in responses across experiments that are well separated in time could arise because of epigenetic modification of Amtyr1 action. That modification is something we will investigate, and will soon report on some of the first experiments in a subsequent manuscript currently in preparation. In the meantime, in an attempt to convey these subtle differences across experiments, I have modified the text on page 3 line 55 to read ‘…delayed or reduced…’. Also, just above that point in the text we refer to learning being ‘…delayed or slower…’

P5,105: reflex? – PE response.

Fixed.

P6: Is AmTYR1 the only tyramine receptor expressed in the honey bee brain?

Yes, there is one other tyramine receptor identified to date – Amtyr2 (Reim et al. 2017. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 80: 91-100). For the reasons outlined here we do not go into detail about Amtyr2 in our manuscript, and we assume that these comments will be available to readers where published.

Expression of Amtyr1 and Amtyr2: In the Reim et al. paper, the authors dissect out regions of the brain and use quantitative PCR to compare expression of each receptor between foragers and nurse bees. The results confirm the expression of both Amtyr1 and Amtyr2 in the central brain, optic lobes, antennal lobes and subesophageal ganglion. These results are shown in their supplemental data (Figure S1). They did not compare the expression levels of Amtyr1 to Amtyr2, they just compared nurses to foragers.

Since there has not been any work done looking at Amtyr2 expression in sections or using in situ or immunohistochemistry, as we have done for Amtyr1, we do not know what specific cells express AmTYR2 beyond knowing it is expressed in those general regions.

Conclusion: Amtyr1 and Amtyr2 are both expressed throughout the brain, and we currently do not know if their expression patterns overlap.

2) The Amtyr1 and Amtyr2 genes are both located on linkage group 1 (chromosome 1). However, they are located 10.3 Mbp (million base pairs) away from each other. The 10 centiMorgan region surrounding Amtyr1 shown in figure 2B in our manuscript encompasses 0.28 Mbp. There are likely to be multiple RAPD and SNP markers between the Amtyr1 and Amtyr2 genes (est941, est294, etc.), which would have separated their effects in the QTL mapping.

Conclusion: Although both tyramine receptor genes are on chromosome 1, the Amtyr2 gene is far away from the identified QTL that includes Amtyr1 and is unlikely to have contributed to the effect.

3) Both Amtyr1 and Amtyr2 are blocked by yohimbine. However, our RNA probes were designed to be specific for Amtyr1 (see Guo et al. 2018. J Insect Physiol 111: 47-52).

Figure 3A: Use of the terms 'familiar' and 'novel' to refer to the two odours tested here is confusing. It would help to clarify on the figure also, that familiarization here is to air, not odour.

We agree that it is confusing. Figures 3 and 4 now refer both in the name of the odors and symbols to represent that they are both novel given that air used was used for familiarization.

P8, L171-2, 179: The legend of Figure 3 suggests saline-treated bees are represented in blue and yohimbine-treated in orange. The opposite is suggested by the key in the figures.

Fixed in the figure legend.

P8, L180: 'familiarized to odor each of the two…… was familiarized..' – sentence?

Corrected.

P9, L190: If the time of year may be important, please specify.

Time of year is one of several variables that affect performance in PER conditioning. As noted in that section of text, timing of injections in terms of proximity to training has an effect to. Because these variables were randomized out across saline and yohimbine injection groups, it is difficult to get into too much detail about what may, or may not, have had an effect. That is, other than mentioning it in the text. Also, effects of season are bound to be very different in desert conditions in Arizona versus more temperate or tropical climates.

P9, L195: Please explain the rationale here. How do puffs of air impact olfactory information processing in the antennal lobe? For example, do they engage in inhibitory networks?

We now discuss in the revision (pg. 19 around line 450) how mechanosensory stimulation with air affects antennal lobe processing, and how it is different from air containing odor.

Figure 3A: If yohimbine is injected immediately prior to conditioning, is there any change in the level of responses to odours? This seems important to test because in Figure 3B yohimbine treatment reduces levels of conditioned responses, whereas in Figure 3C learning in yohimbine-treated animals appears to be completely blocked.

We don’t know the answer to this question. It is possible that there is some reduction in responsiveness either to yohimbine and/or to the injection itself directly prior to conditioning. We thought it important to show with the experiment in 3C that injection timing was not critical to the qualitative results shown in 3B – that is that yohimbine led to an overall reduction in responsiveness and to no difference in responding to Novel and Familiar odors. In the end, the experiment should in 3C is not critical and can be deleted, in particular because we do not have comparable data in Figure 4 for reasons cited in the text.

P9, L212: "Injection of yohimbine eliminated the difference in responses to the novel and familiar odors" – yes, but it did so by reducing the responses to the novel odour. Given the variability in levels of responses in controls, it is difficult to determine whether what we see in Figure 3B, C is latent inhibition, or not. In 3B, for example, the acquisition rate of the familiar odour seems to be similar to that of the novel odour. In Figure 3C, there are too few trials to judge. Figure 1B suggests more than 4 trials may be required to show latent inhibition (as opposed to general inhibition) clearly (e.g. compare Figure 3BC; Figure 4B).

As with all PER studies, there is variability from experiment-to-experiment in how well any form of learning is expressed. In our studies, every experiment in this and other publications (cited in the manuscript) show lower responsiveness to the familiar odor than to the novel. Sometimes this shows up in initial responses, rate of acquisition or asymptotic responses. There is also visual component in addition to the odor specific component, which means the behavior is far more complicated than it looks. In fact, as we review here, much individual variability arises from genetic differences that, as we have shown elsewhere, are important for colony fitness. So some individual bees, and bees from lines selected for low latent inhibition, don’t show the behavior at all.

Here we selected a mix of bees, some of which would show strong latent inhibition and some weak or not at all. We did that, as we describe in the manuscript, so that latent inhibition could be increased or decreased from that mixed baseline of bees. But that means that as we select a small sample from that mixed baseline – ~20-25 bees – that we will sometimes get groups somewhat biased toward showing it or not. That is certainly one of the reasons why there is variation from experiment to experiment. But this variation does not undermine the basic fact that response levels to familiar odors is lower than to novel, one way or another.

P10, L215-218: "This pattern could not arise from blockade of excitatory learning about N [the novel] odor because excitatory learning was unaffected in the air preexposure controls". Is it not more likely that puffs of air do not engage inhibitory circuits in the AL in the same way as puffs of odour?

Yes, we agree. We now describe in detail in the model presented in the new figure 7 that odor itself is much more salient and that it triggers more and different activity in the antennal lobe. All of this is discussed in the now heavily rewritten discussion. As noted in the manuscript, as well as in the responses in this document, lateral (and feedforward) inhibition is likely an important physiological mechanism that underlies latent inhibition to odor. But odor is clearly the more salient stimulus.

P10, L219: what evidence suggests blockade of AmTYR1 "increases latent inhibition"? It seems more likely that lateral inhibition is increased and affects all odours.

The evidence, it seems to us, is that the increase in inhibition is specific to odor ‘familiarization’. That pre-exposure to odor induces behavioral latent inhibition – poor learning of the familiar odor and significantly better learning of the novel odor. The effect of tyramine disruption is then specific to treatments that have odor presentation during the familiarization phase.

If tyramine blockade just increased lateral inhibition, then why is it not present to the same degree after air familiarization as it is when odor is preexposed in the familiarization phase? It seems clear that there is some effect of habituation to odor – the most salient part of the stimulus delivery – that is modulated by tyramine. Note that there is a slight effect of air in Figure 4A, which we discuss at the end of the discussion. But it is quantitatively and qualitatively different for when odor is preexposed.

We now present in Figure 7 a model that encompasses the relationship between inhibitory processes in the antennal lobe, which may also cover other areas of the brain, and the generation of odor-driven latent inhibition.

This is not to say that we have solved all the outstanding questions. There are still many issues to work out in much more detail. But we feel that our contribution at least reveals a very interesting and novel problem that needs much more attention.

P10, L222-224 Treatments in this study were given before or after odour familiarization (i.e. prior to acquisition only). Farooqui et al. (2003) examined the effects of treatments given either, prior to acquisition or prior to memory recall. As results presented in Figure 3C (and 4B) suggest blockade of TYR1 inhibits learning of novel as well as familiarized odours, it seems important to provide or refer to evidence showing that OA signalling is not disrupted, either by yohimbine, or by AmTYR1 dsiRNA injection.

Our treatments are also prior to acquisition and prior to recall, as in Farooqui et al. But keep in mind that the acquisition for latent inhibition is the odor familiarization phase, when odor is presented without reinforcement. The phase in which odors are reinforced is the test phase.

It is likely that yohimbine affects octopamine receptors. But it is much less likely that dsRNA would do that. And if it did, overall learning would be reduced – à la Farooqui et al. – even after air preexposure, and it would not be specific to a familiar odor. Moreover, there are no octopamine receptors within the confidence limits of the locus that came up twice in the genetic studies.

But, given the complexities of the neural circuitry, it may well be that other receptors are involved. So, while we can conclude that Amtyr1 is involved in latent inhibition via its effect through lateral inhibition, we cannot rule out the possible roles of other receptors. To work out first what those receptors are, and then experimentally manipulate them, goes well beyond what can be addressed in a single publication. And that would probably require use of the fruit fly model, as suggested by Reviewer #2 and as listed in the box now in the discussion.

P11, L238: The title of Figure 4 is misleading. Neither latent inhibition nor learning is apparent in bees treated with Amtyr1 dsiRNA. Do you mean increased lateral inhibition?

Actually, learning is apparent – significant trial effect without significant interaction term, as reported in the legend – in Amtyr1 dsRNA treated bees in Figure 4 A. As in our response above, the big ‘inhibitory’ effect of Amtyr1 blockade is specific to when odor is preexposed, in Figure 4B, which gives rise to a significant interaction term.

P11, L243-4: A significant effect of injection (treatment) is reported (<0.01). Doesn't this indicate a significant difference overall between response levels in control bees versus bees in which AmTYR1 is knocked down? This would seem consistent with an overall increase in lateral inhibition.

Yes, which we discuss in the heavily re-written Discussion section. But this general increase would not easily account for the qualitative differences between air familiarization (4A) and odor familiarization (4B).

P11, L252: "..a slight decrement in response rate….(p<<0.01….). – slight?

The word ‘slight’ has been deleted. It is significant, and that effect is discussed in the Discussion (pg 19, line 452-455) as potentially being important for understanding the mechanism. But the difference between 4A and 4B is in the significant interaction term in the latter but not the former. That term shows the effect of odor familiarization and implies the Hebbian mechanism that we have now put into the model in Figure 7.

P11, L261: Why was it predicted that disruption of AmTYR1 would attenuate latent inhibition?

This section was written to convey our surprise that the effect was not a standard effect for attempts to disrupt learning (e.g. dunce, rutabaga, amnesiac – which all block learning in fruit flies). But we clearly anticipated that this effect could be in the direction we observed because we used mixed genotypes in the learning studies.

P13, Figure 5 title: – what evidence is there here of latent inhibition? Presentation of results described in Figure 5 earlier might help clarify at the outset the magnitude and global nature of the changes induced by compromising the AmTYR1 function. This seems consistent also with increased lateral inhibition, rather than increased latent inhibition.

In retrospect, the question of how latent inhibition is shown in this figure may have been less than clear. We have now modified the text in the section starting around line 281, which describes the experiments more clearly. In particular, we clarify how Figures5A and 5B shows the link between Amtyr1 and inhibition. We also clarify how %c and %D show disruption of latent inhibition via its manifestation of novelty detection.

The results are fascinating. They suggest to me that tyramine is released tonically in the AL providing an essential brake on lateral inhibition.

The model we now propose in Figure 7 describes how we think tyramine provides this brake. And we try to clarify that we think lateral (and feedforward) inhibition is critical to production of latent inhibition.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Line 70ff "… a major locus … maps to a location in the honey bee genome…": I wonder if reference 21 is the correct reference at this point. Scheiner et al. did not carry out a mapping study but found a splice variant of the AmTYR1 receptor. Perhaps reference 24 (Page et al., 2000) would be more appropriate here?

Fixed. Ref 21 is now Page et al. 2000.

Lines 124-139: This short half-page within the Results section does not refer to the results of the present study but essentially summarizes existing knowledge on the AmTYR1 receptor and VUM neurons in honey bees and other insects. The authors should consider presenting this information in the introduction.

We prefer to keep this in place. In doing so it reflects more the process of how we came to focus on Amtyr1 in this genetic region, that is, over any other gene in this region. To put it in the intro might imply that we anticipated Amtyr1 coming out of the genetic screen.

Lines 147/147 "… the tyramine receptor antagonist yohimbine …": Although widely used in insect studies as a tyramine receptor antagonist, the specificity of yohimbine is not absolute. For example, yohimbine is also a high-affinity antagonist of the recently described honey bee α2-adrenergic-like octopamine receptor (reference 31). Yohimbine also has an antagonistic effect on the second tyramine receptor of the honey bee (Reim et al., 2017). From my point of view, this underlines the importance of the use of an alternative approach (DsiAmTyr1 treatment) by the authors. Unfortunately, no more specific antagonists are available either. Nevertheless, in my view, it would be best to point out this possible specificity issue.

So noted in text around lines 237-239.

Line 562ff "…primers for quantitative real-time PCR …": Can the authors please justify the choice of actin as the reference gene for qPCR? How has the stability of expression of the reference gene been checked?

I have added a new reference (75) discussing the use of actin as a control for many different siRNA manipulations. Also, this experiment used a scrambled Amtyr1 sequence as the control, and the result was that expression of Amtyr1 was reduced three-fold relative to the scrambled sequence. Given no change in actin, and reduction relative to scrambled, we feel that this experiment was well controlled. Checking for stability, as we understand this comment, would require one or two more reference genes in addition to actin.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

All of my suggestions would be outside the scope of the paper.

I would enjoy seeing profiling of classical hPTMs associated with enhancer and regulatory sites (k27ac, K4m1, K4m3) via ChIP-seq, as well as associated RNA-seq analyses between the different lines or individuals showing variation in latent inhibition, in order to better understand the molecular components of this not directly relevant to the locus; however, this is a 'tall ask' for such a well-done paper.

This manuscript, as reference above, will be forthcoming very soon as a follow up to this publication.

The statistics were simple because this was appropriate.

For honeybee, the samples were well assessed, validated via dsiRNA and pharmacological methods, and interpretations were appropriately leveraged in light of the data.

I got nothing bar a bunch of genomics that aren't necessary…

We removed one figure describing locations of snp’s in and around the Amtyr1 locus. This was not too informative, as this reviewer suggests. We also moved the text on this figure to the section describing the QTL (around line 145).

[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed. Two of the initial three reviewers carefully went through the changes you implemented; the third reviewer was not available anymore. While we remain convinced that the results presented in this manuscript are fundamentally important, we also believe that the interpretation of your experimental data ought to be open to alternative explanations. The main problem is that the conclusions of the work rely on the use of indirect measures of latent inhibition. Presently, the electrophysiology results presented in Figure 5 fall short of unambiguously supporting latent inhibition. It is also difficult to apply the model proposed in Figure 7 to explain the results of Figure 5 (there is a concern about the fact that the original model of Ramaswami and colleagues has been partly distorted). Overall, the conceptual model of Figure 7 appears to bring more confusion than clarifications. These issues should be addressed prior to the publication of the work. We invite you to revise the manuscript along the lines suggested by the two reviewers -- please see their individual reports below.

We agree with the reviewers that reaching a mechanistic understanding of the function of AmTYR1 in the antennal lobe would be beyond the reach of a single study. Given the limitations of the experimental data presented in the manuscript, we ask that you acknowledge the possibility of explanations different from pure latent inhibition in your discussion of the results. Moreover, we recommend the addition of a reciprocal treatment to complete the electrophysiology inspection of Figure 5 (see comments of Reviewer #2). This addition offers an experimentally testable prediction that can be made based on the latent-inhibition model that you are proposing.

I asked a colleague who works in behavior genetics to review the manuscript. He pointed out that the outcome of our experiments is not what one would expect from a typical knockout experiment. I agree and have pointed that out in the manuscript’s discussion and in the response letters. But readers may approach the manuscript with that strong expectation, which is what is leading to some of the reviews. He convinced me it would be good to revise the introduction to set readers up for a story that is very different from what one expects. I have added the last paragraph to the introduction in an effort to describe what the ‘counterintuitive’ outcome of the story will be. I hope this clarifies a story that is, admittedly, more complicated that one normally expects.

In regard to the reciprocal experiment in Figure 5, we have done that and reported the fully counterbalanced results in an earlier publication (Lei et al. #51) cited in the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. The authors conclude that disruption of Amtyr1 signaling increases the expression of latent inhibition but has little effect on appetitive conditioning (Abstract L29), but neither conclusion is clearly supported by the results presented in Figures3 and 4. Disruption of AmTYR1 reduced response levels (including responses to the novel odor) severely. As a result, latent inhibition could not be evaluated.

There is a misunderstanding here, which stems from the claim that “Disruption of AmTYR1 reduced response levels (including responses to the novel odor) severely. As a result, latent inhibition could not be evaluated.” This statement is incorrect. We show that blockade (Figure 3A) or disruption (Figure 4A) of amtyr1 has no or only slight effects on excitatory conditioning. But the same treatment that produces behavioral latent inhibition – odor familiarization – in control animals (saline or scrambled dsRNA injected animals) produces a profound reduction in odor responsiveness in treatment animals (yohimbine or dsRNA groups). The reduction is specific to the familiarization treatment that produces latent inhibition (in Figure 3B,C but not 3A, and in Figure 4B but not 4A). This indicates that amtyr1 could be affecting a neural mechanism that somehow modulates latent inhibition.

What we have done is a standard protocol for studying the effects of any gene on a behavior. One disrupts the gene (or its product) and shows that the behavior is disrupted. Therefore, it does not seem reasonable to us to conclude that amtyr1’s role in latent inhibition could not be evaluated because, when it is disrupted, animals no longer show latent inhibition.

The question is how this disruption occurs. Part of the misunderstanding is that latent inhibition is disrupted in an unexpected and counterintuitive way, which in fact we did not anticipate when we ran the experiments (and which is described in the Discussion in paragraph starting around line 443). As noted, normally one establishes a behavior and then tries to disrupt a neural pathway that is associated with the behavior. In this case, we anticipated that upon disruption of amtyr1 the response to the familiar odor would rise to equal response to the novel odor, which would remain unaffected.

But that did not happen either with pharmacological or dsRNA treatments. Instead, blockade or disruption of amtyr1 drags down the response to the novel odor to be equal to that for the familiar odor. For that reason we do not reach the conclusion that amtyr1 produces latent inhibition. But amtyr1 clearly affects expression of latent inhibition.

We try to be clear throughout the manuscript (and in the title) that it modulates expression of latent inhibition, and we ultimately argue that it does so by indirectly modifying Hebbian plasticity in inhibitory networks. (This mechanism is not unlike what this reviewer describes). Indeed in figure 7 we show based on our published data (Sinakevitch et al. 2017) that amtyr1 is operating at synapses separate from, and upstream of, the synapses that we and Ramaswami et al. have proposed for Hebbian-plasticity dependent latent inhibition.

The sentence this reviewer refers to in the abstract is: “…We then show that disruption of Amtyr1 signaling either pharmacologically or through RNAi increases expression of latent inhibition but has little effect on appetitive conditioning, and these results suggest that AmTYR1 modulates inhibitory processing in the CNS.” The highlighted text now reads: “…qualitatively changes expression of latent inhibition…”. But note that even in the original version we write that it changes expression of latent inhibition, not that it disrupts latent inhibition. We also write in that sentence that it modulates inhibitory processing.

In addition, in the first revision we added the second paragraph in the Discussion in which we explicitly write “…it [amtyr1] is not a latent inhibition gene’ (Lines 385-394). Importantly, our interpretation of the effect of amtyr1 – that it is modulating sensory inputs – can potentially explain the broader pleiotropic effects that have been documented for amtyr1. This point is made in the Discussion.

Admittedly, some of the confusion may stem from the way we described the behavior in prior versions of this manuscript, some of which made it into these later versions. But our thinking has evolved, in part as a result of these very thorough reviews. We have now made new changes throughout the manuscript to hopefully remove any ambiguity in regard to this issue. It needs to be clear that the modulation by amtyr1 – at afferent axon terminals in the antennal lobe and mushroom body – is separate from the familiarization-induced mechanism for latent inhibition at LN-to-PN or PN-to-MB terminals.

2. Previous work from the Smith lab revealed that local neurons (LNs) in the antennal lobes of the bee express octopamine receptors. This elegant work led to their proposal that octopamine inhibits inhibitory LNs in the glomerular core (leading to disinhibition of PNs) and simultaneously blocks excitation in neighboring glomeruli. It seems likely this could interfere with the generation and resilience of latent inhibition. In the experiments outlined here, appetitive learning performance is used to provide an indirect measure of latent inhibition induced by odor familiarization, but one difficulty in using this approach is that stimulation of the antennae with sucrose activates the VUMmx1 neuron (Hammer 1993), which will increase octopamine levels in the antennal lobes. The effects of sensitization and appetitive conditioning are therefore superimposed on effects induced by familiarization. What do the authors predict the outcome of this would be?

The measure we use for Latent Inhibition – retardation of acquisition – is the standard direct behavioral measure for latent inhibition (see refs 4 and 5 by Lubow). Unreinforced presentation of any CS sets up non associative plasticity, the memory of which interferes with the mechanisms that produce and/or express excitatory conditioning, as this reviewer’s comment suggests for octopamine. To rephrase this reviewer’s comment, latent inhibition likely interferes with the generation and resilience of excitatory conditioning, which is the basic mechanism of latent inhibition implied by retardation of acquisition. We have shown retardation of acquisition in detail in Chandra et al. (cited ref #6), including failure of summation, which is the other direct measure of latent inhibition.

In fact, in an earlier publication my colleagues and I provided a framework for how this interaction could take place. We show via computational modeling how neural mechanisms of non associative (latent inhibition), associative and operant conditioning could interact to shape the form of behavioral responses:

A computational framework for understanding decision making through integration of basic learning rules. Bazhenov M, Huerta R, Smith BH. J Neurosci. 2013 Mar 27;33(13):5686-97. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4145-12.2013. PMID: 23536082

And we have models for octopamine action in associative conditioning in the antennal lobe that could be adapted here, e.g.:

Learning modifies odor mixture processing to improve detection of relevant components.

Chen JY, Marachlian E, Assisi C, Huerta R, Smith BH, Locatelli F, Bazhenov M. J Neurosci. 2015 Jan 7;35(1):179-97. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2345-14.2015. PMID: 25568113

We certainly need to look at this interaction both computationally and experimentally. But this is thesis-level work that is beyond the scope of this publication.

3. The model provided in Figure 7 does not seem to represent well the results of the electrophysiological analysis in this study (Figure 5). Disruption of AmTYR1 signalling (in the absence of odor familiarization) caused a dramatic decline in responses to odorants (Figure 5A,B), and rather than promoting latent inhibition, yohimbine treatment decreased odor response biases, and blocked the ability to enhance existing odor biases using familiarization (Figure 5C,D). The model presented in Figure 7, however, predicts that latent inhibition should be strongest when AmTYR1 function is blocked (Figure 7B). Doesn't this suggest something other than latent inhibition might be responsible for the global inhibition observed?

The short answer to the question at the end is ‘no’. First, potentiation of the response to the novel odor after familiarization occurs via a mechanism we do not, and at this point for lack of data we cannot, represent in Figure 7. That potentiation could occur via a so far unknown mechanism intrinsic to the antennal lobe neural networks, or, perhaps more likely, it could occur via feedback from mechanisms in the mushroom bodies that are known to produce potentiation to novel stimuli (new ref #67). We only show in Figure 5 that expression of it depends on amtyr1 function.

Under normal circumstances amtyr1 is functional and moderating the Hebbian plasticity at LN-to-PN synapses at levels consistent with Figures7C or 7D, where novel odors are learned well (likely aided by potentiation). Blocking or disrupting amtyr1 puts the network in a state consistent with 7B, where responses to all odors are affected by very strong Hebbian plasticity at LN-to-PN synapses – including ‘potentiated’ novel odors given the overlap in sensory representations (see the response to the next comment [#4]). It is clear in the behavioral data that acquisition to novel odors is blocked by familiarization to odor with amtyr1 disruption. And this blockade does not occur in the controls when just air was used with the same amtyr1 disruption, which shows that it is not simply augmentation of inhibition outside of familiarization treatment.

We try to clarify this now with blue text paraphrased from this response in the Discussion of the manuscript (lines 525-545).

4. The authors suggest that Hebbian plasticity underlying latent inhibition is responsible for observed declines in odor responses (L429-433). As a result of disruption of Amtyr1 signaling, Hebbian plasticity, they argue, could induce a signal strong enough to produce inhibition to odors other than the familiar odor. This is interesting, but the model presented in Figure 7 is confusing and tells us little about how this might occur. The schematic suggests NMDA-receptor signaling in glomerulus X (top) leads to NMDA receptor-signaling in glomerulus Y. However, in glomerulus Y there is likely to be relatively little ORN-mediated excitation of PNs (or LNs). Also, in the lower glomerulus (Y), the retrograde signal (green arrow) appears to go from LN to PN. How would this work?

First, the arrow in glomerulus Y was incorrect. It should be flipped, and is correctly represented in the new version of the manuscript. Now it shows the retrograde signal going from PNy to the LN. I apologize for that error.

What this reviewer writes above is incorrect: “…in glomerulus Y there is likely to be relatively little ORN-mediated excitation of PNs (or LNs).” As we describe in lines 494 to 506 of the Discussion, and as has been described in several publications including in Figure 1 (see Figure A C-8 secondary ketone vs C-6 primary alcohol) of the Paoli and Galizia (2021) review we cite, there is overlap in odor activity maps for most of the common monomolecular odors used in behavioral and physiological studies of olfaction in honey bees, including the two odors we use in this study. So, under blockade or disruption of amtyr1, which would increase sensory drive from ORN axon terminals, Hebbian plasticity could easily occur in the representation for the novel odor under conditions of amtyr1 disruption.

5. The authors acknowledge clearly that their model is based on a model of habituation in the AL of Drosophila, proposed by Ramaswami and colleagues. However, the authors have made subtle changes to the schematic provided by Twick et al. (2014) that could lead to some confusion. For example, excitatory inputs from ORNs onto PNs and LNs are depicted in the fly model as being distant from the NMDA receptor-mediated signalling proposed to underpin habituation. These synapses appear adjacent to the shaded area, which I assume represents the glomerular core. In the schematic presented in Figure 7, these synapses lie within the shaded area, which I assume now represents the glomerulus as a whole (core plus outer cortex). These differences may seem minor, but they could be misleading.

We attempted to adopt as faithfully as possible the figure from Twick et al. The change in the shaded area was not meant to imply anything about where the synapses were made (inside or outside of a glomerulus core or cortex). This has now been clarified in the legend for this figure.

6. To help explain why AmTYR1 dysfunction gives rise to a global decline in odor responses, it would be helpful to provide a summary of neural networks in the AL of the bee. An excellent schematic presented by Smith and colleagues in an earlier publication (Sinakovitch et al. 2017) would be extremely helpful here. I believe the Sinakovitch model would make it much easier to discuss the results of this study, and their relationship with the fly habituation model.

See reply to point #7.

7. At present, the authors do not comment at all on the unique roles of various subpopulations of LN in the bee or their functional properties. This omission seems odd given the central role LNs play in latent inhibition. Consideration of the functional properties of LNs also suggests alternative explanations for the general decline in odor responses observed in this study -- for example, the potential involvement of homogeneous LNs. Activation of these neurons, which have widefield arborizations throughout the AL, would be predicted to induce lateral inhibition that could potentially provide gain control. This seems highly relevant here, because it would help prevent saturation from the strong inputs generated as a result of compromised Amtyr1 function. I strongly recommend the papers from Rachel Wilson's group on this topic (e.g., Olsen et al. 2010).

We present in Figure 7 a simplified, heuristic model aimed toward helping readers understand what we think is happening in the antennal lobe and possibly at PN axon synapses in the mushroom body. This model is not meant to represent the full complexity of neural networks at either level of processing. The sort of discussion to generate a full mechanistic understanding of what is happening with amtyr1 in both networks, involving all of the different cell types in either location, would require computational modeling to understand the complexity. That can and should be done, but it is beyond the scope of one publication.

Nevertheless, in response to this review we present some information along these lines. We feel that the most likely LNs represented in Figure 7 would be the heterogeneous LNs, as represented in a previous model of the antennal lobe published by my lab. We include a paragraph in the discussion on this topic (lines 507-524). In that paragraph we also reference a prior publication Sinakevitch et al. (2017) where we present a more detailed model of the antennal lobe circuitry including amtyr1 and amoa1, a receptor for octopamine thought to be involved in excitatory conditioning.

In summary, I feel the bulk of the evidence presented in this paper points to an alternative explanation for the dramatic reduction in responses to odors induced by Amtyr1 knockdown. The results could potentially be a consequence of Amtyr1 knockdown inducing large responses that cause saturation in the network. In the absence of familiarization this can be controlled by lateral inhibition, but the process of familiarization, rather than leading to latent inhibition, causes further saturation and as a result, destabilization, which causes profound inhibition of the neural network.

I have put new paragraphs in the manuscript to clarify our interpretations, which will require much more physiological-level analyses and computational modeling. These paragraphs include an elaboration of one already in the Discussion from the first revision on the likelihood that behavioral latent inhibition arises as a result of distributed neural mechanisms in at least the antennal lobes and mushroom bodies (see ref 67 and lines 401-417).

But the review here is forcing us to defend a position – i.e., that we can explain behavioral latent inhibition solely in neural networks of the antennal lobes – that is too premature and speculative, and is quite possibly wrong. Explaining behavior, after we treat the entire brain, by just focusing on the antennal lobes is too speculative. We have shown that Amtyr1 is expressed in both the antennal lobes and mushroom body on afferent axon terminals from ORNs and PNs. We actually discuss this issue in the third paragraph (lines 395-411) in the Discussion, which we added as a result of the previous review.

We are proposing a model, based on a request for one in the previous review, for encoding of a correlate of latent inhibition in the antennal lobes that makes sense based on our prior analyses and those of Ramaswami et al., and based on our behavioral and electrophysiological data in this manuscript. The correlation is defined as a neural effect that is produced by the same familiarization treatment that produces behavioral latent inhibition, and which is affected by blockade or disruption of amtyr1. We feel that what is happening in the antennal lobe contributes to the behavior, but it is likely functioning with at least a similar processing mechanism in the mushroom bodies. To go into too much detail about the neural networks of the antennal lobes at this point, beyond what we do to explain the neural mechanism as we see it, would distract from the broader point that this mechanism might be acting in the mushroom bodies too.

The electrophysiological experiments we report were also never meant to show that the antennal lobe is the “seat” or “locus” of behavioral latent inhibition in the brain. It was not even meant to argue that what happens in the antennal lobe is necessary and/or sufficient for generating behavioral latent inhibition. That, or specifically what roles antennal lobe mechanisms play in behavior, now remains to be determined.

We focus on the antennal lobes simply because we know where amtyr1 is in that circuitry, and we have shown in two previous publications that manifestations of latent inhibition can be seen in the antennal lobe with the recordings. Our intention in putting the electrophysiological data from the antennal lobes into the manuscript was simply to show that we can establish neural correlates of amtyr1 blockade that depend on the same odor familiarization treatment that generates behavioral latent inhibition. These data generate ideas that can be further investigated with more detailed experiments that are beyond the scope of this publication.

I could specifically reference the mechanism described in this summary comment from this reviewer, and hopefully the reviews will be published with the manuscript. But I have to admit I am not sure I understand what is being proposed here well enough to be comfortable putting it in our manuscript, or that it is even fundamentally different from the familiarization-based mechanism that we propose in Figure 7. For example, if familiarization causes “further saturation”, as this reviewer suggests, then by definition the familiarization treatment – plasticity produced by unreinforced odor exposure – is a correlate of latent inhibition as defined above. So I don’t understand the phrase “…rather than leading to latent inhibition…”. The effect this reviewer is describing depends on the treatment that produces latent inhibition.

In the end this reviewer may be suggesting something very similar to what we are suggesting – that there is a familiarization-dependent mechanism that affects neural inhibition and hence odor processing in the antennal lobe and, quite likely, mushroom bodies too. Maybe the main difference is that our model in Figure 7 is simplified and meant only as a heuristic to explain what is happening. This reviewer proposes something more specific to the actual neural machinery of the antennal lobe to accomplish the same familiarization-dependent process. But it may not be an independent, alternative interpretation. And it requires a computational model to elaborate on it.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

In the revised version of their manuscript, the authors have responded to many of the reviewers' comments. In particular, they modified the discussion of the data significantly. They introduced a new Figure 7 in order to make it easier for the reader to understand the complex model of the effects of AmTYR1 activation in the antennal lobe.

However, I do not find the model very understandable, and, in particular, the results of the electrophysiological recordings shown in Figure 5 are not sufficiently addressed in this model.

See responses to comments 3 and 4 for review #1. The discussion of the (now the correct figure) model has been greatly expanded in lines 501-539 of the discussion.

In an attempt to understand these relations better, I again looked closely at Figure 5C+D of the manuscript. The question I asked myself was what the outcome of a reciprocal experiment would be:

How does the number of units (neurons) that are more responsive to octanone change when familiarization is done with octanone instead of hexanol?

In previous study (ref 51 Lei et al.; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265009), also cited in the manuscript and in the new section of the Discussion (lines 519-524), we showed that familiarization shifted antennal lobe units to respond more strongly to novel odor, regardless of which odor – 2-octanone or hexanol – was used as the novel odor. In other words, the odors were fully counterbalanced in that study.

A drop from 39% to a smaller number would likely be expected. Is that true?

Not necessarily. The relative portions above and below the diagonal line depend on collective response biases across all recorded units.

In this case, what is the influence of yohimbine injection?

With latent inhibition intact, more units became biased towards the novel odor after familiarization. With latent inhibition disrupted by yohimbine, the novel odor biases disappeared. We now explain this effect, and its origins, more in the discussion.

If yohimbine prevents the latent inhibition effect, yohimbine injection should prevent a decrease in the number (below 39%) or possibly even cause the number of responding neurons to rise (above 39%). Can this be shown experimentally?

Yes, but it’s actually the opposite. Latent inhibition resulted in percentage increase (from 39% to 54%). Yohimbine caused the percentage to decrease (from 49% to 14%). Again, see new explanation in the Discussion.

Alternatively, does yohimbine lead to a decrease in the number of octanone-biased neurons also in this constellation?

Yes. In this experiment, octanone was a novel odor. Yohimbine caused a decrease of number of units responding to octanone after familiarization.

This would argue for yohimbine causing a general decrease in the response to odorants.

Yes, yohimbine caused a general decrease in response to odorants. As we now explain in the discussion, that is consistent with an expected increase in excitation from ORN axons onto inhibitory interneurons, as shown in Figure 7. However, for either odorant (as in Lei et al. ref 51) one can still identify units that have response biases toward one or the other odor. In the current experiment (Figure 5D), 49% of units showed stronger response to octanone as the novel odor even in the presence of yohimbine. After familiarization under yohimbine treatment, response bias did not increase as it normally would. Instead it decreased such that only 14% of units remained more responsive to octanone. In other words, familiarization normally causes more units to respond to novel odor, but that was disrupted by yohimbine.

Can these assumptions or the results of the corresponding experiment be reconciled with the model shown in Figure 7? What would the model imply in this case?

Biases toward one or the other odor prior to familiarization are consistent with many other studies of units in the antennal lobes of many insects. And these biases occur even after yohimbine treatment, which causes a general decline in unit responsiveness. But the increase in response to the novel odor after familiarization is blocked, and even reversed, by yohimbine.

There are many open questions that we can speculate on, but it would be better done in the context of more experiments with different odors, more physiological recordings both from the antennal lobes and mushroom bodies, and, importantly, all of this should be done in the context of rigorous computational modeling.

We strongly agree with the comment from this reviewer in the first review. That is, that we should adopt the fruit fly to further test what we propose here. And we are in the process of doing that.

Line 482 "this plasticity it would give rise to": Delete "it".

Deleted.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83348.sa2

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Joseph S Latshaw

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Contribution
    Investigation, Methodology
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  2. Reece E Mazade

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Contribution
    Investigation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  3. Mary Petersen

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Contribution
    Investigation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  4. Julie A Mustard

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Present address
    School of Integrative Biological and Chemical Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, United States
    Contribution
    Supervision, Investigation, Methodology
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1412-1140
  5. Irina Sinakevitch

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Present address
    Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Contribution
    Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  6. Lothar Wissler

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Contribution
    Methodology
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  7. Xiaojiao Guo

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Contribution
    Investigation, Methodology
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  8. Chelsea Cook

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Contribution
    Software, Formal analysis
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  9. Hong Lei

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Contribution
    Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  10. Jürgen Gadau

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Present address
    Institute for Evolution und Biodiversity, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
    Contribution
    Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Investigation, Methodology
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  11. Brian Smith

    School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    For correspondence
    brian.h.smith@asu.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7018-8561

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01GM113967)

  • Brian Smith

National Science Foundation (2113179)

  • Brian Smith

National Science Foundation (1559632)

  • Brian Smith

Department of Energy (SC0021922)

  • Brian Smith

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

Acknowledgements

National Institutes of Health NIGMS (R01GM113967), Brian H Smith. National Science Foundation CRCNS (2113179), Brian H Smith. National Science Foundation NeuroNex (1559632), Brian H Smith co-PI. National Science Foundation BRAID (2223839), Brian H Smith co-PI. Department of Energy (SC0021922), Brian H Smith. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Senior Editor

  1. Christian Rutz, University of St Andrews, United Kingdom

Reviewing Editor

  1. Matthieu Louis, University of California, Santa Barbara, United States

Reviewers

  1. Alison Mercer, University of Otago, New Zealand
  2. Wolfgang Blenau, Leipzig University, Germany

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: September 5, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: September 8, 2022
  3. Accepted: August 14, 2023
  4. Version of Record published: October 10, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record updated: October 23, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Latshaw et al.

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

Metrics

  • 258
    Page views
  • 49
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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. Joseph S Latshaw
  2. Reece E Mazade
  3. Mary Petersen
  4. Julie A Mustard
  5. Irina Sinakevitch
  6. Lothar Wissler
  7. Xiaojiao Guo
  8. Chelsea Cook
  9. Hong Lei
  10. Jürgen Gadau
  11. Brian Smith
(2023)
Tyramine and its Amtyr1 receptor modulate attention in honey bees (Apis mellifera)
eLife 12:e83348.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83348

Further reading

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Alex Mas Sandoval, Sara Mathieson, Matteo Fumagalli
    Research Article

    Cultural and socioeconomic differences stratify human societies and shape their genetic structure beyond the sole effect of geography. Despite mating being limited by sociocultural stratification, most demographic models in population genetics often assume random mating. Taking advantage of the correlation between sociocultural stratification and the proportion of genetic ancestry in admixed populations, we sought to infer the former process in the Americas. To this aim, we define a mating model where the individual proportions of the genome inherited from Native American, European and sub-Saharan African ancestral populations constrain the mating probabilities through ancestry-related assortative mating and sex bias parameters. We simulate a wide range of admixture scenarios under this model. Then, we train a deep neural network and retrieve good performance in predicting mating parameters from genomic data. Our results show how population stratification shaped by socially constructed racial and gender hierarchies have constrained the admixture processes in the Americas since the European colonisation and the subsequent Atlantic slave trade.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    James T Anderson, Steven Henikoff, Kami Ahmad
    Research Article

    Spermatogenesis in the Drosophila male germline proceeds through a unique transcriptional program controlled both by germline-specific transcription factors and by testis-specific versions of core transcriptional machinery. This program includes the activation of genes on the heterochromatic Y chromosome, and reduced transcription from the X chromosome, but how expression from these sex chromosomes is regulated has not been defined. To resolve this, we profiled active chromatin features in the testes from wildtype and meiotic arrest mutants and integrate this with single-cell gene expression data from the Fly Cell Atlas. These data assign the timing of promoter activation for genes with germline-enriched expression throughout spermatogenesis, and general alterations of promoter regulation in germline cells. By profiling both active RNA polymerase II and histone modifications in isolated spermatocytes, we detail widespread patterns associated with regulation of the sex chromosomes. Our results demonstrate that the X chromosome is not enriched for silencing histone modifications, implying that sex chromosome inactivation does not occur in the Drosophila male germline. Instead, a lack of dosage compensation in spermatocytes accounts for the reduced expression from this chromosome. Finally, profiling uncovers dramatic ubiquitinylation of histone H2A and lysine-16 acetylation of histone H4 across the Y chromosome in spermatocytes that may contribute to the activation of this heterochromatic chromosome.