Long-term memory (LTM) is a fundamental cognitive process that allows organisms to efficiently retain and retrieve information over extended (and sometimes lifelong) periods of time. Since the long-term retention of fortuitous or poorly relevant associations can drive maladaptive behavior, the triage of learning experiences and routing to LTM has to be tightly gatekept. As a result of this cognitive constraint, brains have evolved mechanisms for the default inhibition of LTM formation (Abel et al., 1998; Scheunemann et al., 2018). Under certain circumstances, LTM inhibition is lifted in a process known as LTM gating. Defective gating in either direction is expected to cause memorization deficits or (on the contrary) hypermnesia, with both conditions leading to a severe deterioration in the quality of life. It is therefore crucial to decipher the underlying mechanisms behind this precisely regulated process. One of the most conserved conditions known to potently lift the default inhibition of LTM formation is the spaced repetition of learning (Abel et al., 1998; Shaughnessy, 1977), which has been reported in a number of species from Aplysia (Sutton et al., 2002), C. elegans (Nishijima and Maruyama, 2017) and Drosophila (Tully et al., 1994) to mice (Glas et al., 2021) and humans (Shaughnessy, 1977). This phenomenon is called the spacing effect, in contrast with intensive learning (or cramming), in which massed presentation of information leads to the formation of a less persistent form of consolidated memory (Shaughnessy, 1977). Studies in animal models, in particular in fruit flies using an associative aversive olfactory paradigm, demonstrated that LTM formation following spaced training exerts a significant energetic burden on organisms (Mery and Kawecki, 2005; Padamsey and Rochefort, 2023; Plaçais et al., 2017; Plaçais and Preat, 2013). Following the paired delivery of an odorant with electric shocks, flies show learned avoidance of this odorant for a couple hours (Quinn et al., 1974). Whereas spaced repetition of odor/shock pairing allows sustained retention (up to 1 week; Bouzaiane et al., 2015; Heisenberg, 2003), massed training results in the rapid decline (1–2 days) of the formed memory, which provides a powerful, experimentally tractable way to model the spacing effect versus cramming. Strikingly, in the hours following spaced training in fruit flies, their sucrose intake is observed to increase by over twofold (Plaçais et al., 2017), which does not occur after massed training. In addition, spaced, but not massed, training decreases the survival duration of flies under conditions of limited resources (Plaçais and Preat, 2013). These observations reveal a major impact of LTM formation on the energy balance of the whole organism, with this metabolic constraint being an additional incentive for the default inhibition of LTM formation. Interestingly, the recent finding that cellular energy fluxes are involved in the control of LTM formation (Plaçais et al., 2017) suggests that both cognitive and metabolic constraints linked with LTM formation may be merged in a unitary, cost-effective gating process. Indeed, we previously showed that the upregulation of mitochondrial metabolic activity in neurons of the mushroom bodies (MB), the insect brain’s memory center, in the first hours following spaced training is critical to initiating LTM formation (Plaçais et al., 2017). This upregulation of mitochondrial metabolism depends on post-learning dopamine signaling from a specific pair of MB-afferent neurons, called MP1 neurons (or PPL1-γ1pedc neurons Aso et al., 2014), which show sustained calcium rhythmic activity in the same time windows encompassing the first hours after spaced training (Plaçais et al., 2012). MP1 activates MB mitochondrial activity via the DAMB receptor (also named Dop1R2; Plaçais et al., 2017). The putative interdependence of cognitive and metabolic constraints, two sides of the same coin, therefore calls for the identification of the neuronal molecular gatekeeper at the core of the spacing effect, linking neuronal network activity and mitochondrial energy metabolism.

The G-protein-coupled receptor DAMB preferentially engages with Gq (Cassar et al., 2015; Himmelreich et al., 2017), which signals via the second messengers DAG (Mizuno and Itoh, 2009) and calcium, two canonical activators of a broad family of serine/threonine kinases called PKC enzymes. Within the PKC family, two subfamilies can be activated by downstream effectors of Gq: the classical PKCs (PKCα, PKCβ1 and β2, PKCγ), that are regulated by both DAG and calcium, and the novel PKCs (PKCδ, PKCε, PKCη, PKCθ,), that are exclusively activated by DAG but not calcium (Duquesnes et al., 2011). In Drosophila, genes of the two PKC subfamilies are present (Shieh et al., 2002): the classical PKCs PKC53E and eye-PKC, the novel PKCs PKC98E and PKCδ, as well as a PKC-related kinase (CG2049). Their expression patterns in the fly brain have not been systematically characterized, however single-cell transcriptomic data show that all of them are expressed at various levels across the Drosophila brain (Davie et al., 2018). Among those PKC isoforms, PKCδ shows unique properties that make it a candidate of particular interest for mediating DAMB signaling. In non-neuronal mammalian cells, it was shown that PKCδ can translocate to mitochondria upon its activation (Wu-Zhang et al., 2012), where it specifically localizes to the intermembrane space. There, PKCδ is able to activate oxidative metabolism by targeting the pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) complex (Acin-Perez et al., 2010; Kim and Hammerling, 2020), which catalyzes the first step of pyruvate metabolism for oxidative phosphorylation. Despite this evidence, the mechanisms underlying the regulation of PKCδ translocation to mitochondria upon activation, and how it interfaces with extracellular signals, remains poorly understood. Although PKCδ expression is commonly used to identify specific neurons in the mammalian brain (Cai et al., 2014; Cui et al., 2017; Dilly et al., 2022; Haubensak et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2020; Williford et al., 2023), the functional role of PKCδ in brain tissues has remained thus far largely unexplored. Nonetheless, the putative ability of PKCδ to act as the interface between Gq-mediated activation and metabolic activity control prompted us to study this kinase as the missing piece in the puzzle of LTM gating that could bridge dopaminergic activation and neuronal mitochondrial metabolism.

We first uncovered that PKCδ activation is required in MB neurons for LTM formation through behavior experiments involving targeted genetic inhibition of PKCδ and in vivo functional brain imaging using a specific sensor of PKCδ activity, δCKAR (Kajimoto et al., 2010; Wu-Zhang et al., 2012), which we introduced in Drosophila. We further showed that PKCδ is a downstream effector of DAMB and that its translocation to the mitochondria is triggered upon LTM formation by MP1/DAMB signaling. Employing in vivo imaging of cellular pyruvate consumption, we showed that PKCδ intervenes in LTM formation through its metabolic role as a mitochondrial activator, by releasing the pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) complex inhibition. We therefore revealed that a major effect of spaced training is to mobilize the DAMB/PKCδ signaling cascade in order to perpetuate for several hours a neuronal metabolic enhancement that only transiently occurs after a single learning session. Overall, our data establish PKCδ as an essential activator of neuronal pyruvate mitochondrial metabolism that mediates the spacing effect on memory consolidation.

In this study, we unveiled a detailed molecular mechanism underlying the spacing effect on memory consolidation. We established that PKCδ, a known regulator of mitochondrial pyruvate metabolism in several peripheral tissues, is a critical player in LTM formation in α/β MB neurons, while being dispensable for less stable forms of aversive memory. Additionally, we imported in Drosophila a genetically encoded FRET sensor for PKCδ (Kajimoto et al., 2010; Wu-Zhang et al., 2012), which allowed observing the PKCδ activity level in vivo. Thus, we reported a specific activation and mitochondrial translocation of PKCδ following spaced training, but not 1 x or massed training. We established that specific dopaminergic neurons (MP1 neurons), which are required early after spaced training for LTM formation (Plaçais et al., 2017), activate PKCδ translocation to mitochondria, through a specific Gq-coupled dopamine receptor, DAMB. Consistent with the role of this dopamine signaling that we previously reported (Plaçais et al., 2017), we showed here that activated PKCδ persistently upregulates pyruvate metabolism, thereby allowing LTM formation. Altogether, our data demonstrate that PKCδ, acting as an activator of mitochondrial metabolism, is a neuronal gatekeeper of LTM formation. More generally, our findings provide a detailed mechanistic description of how dopamine signaling orchestrates memory consolidation through sustained modulation of neuronal energy fluxes, thereby resolving within a single gating mechanism the cognitive and metabolic constraints linked to LTM formation.

It is particularly striking that local dopaminergic signaling specifically delivered at the level of the MBs peduncle is able to globally activate a kinase in the various axonal compartments of the MBs. This observation calls for the understanding of the transfer mechanisms taking place to propagate PKCδ activation and translocation to mitochondria from the peduncle to the vertical and medial lobes. Given that MBs distinct modules are not separated by physical barriers, and that DAMB/PKCδ activation lasts several hours, two hypotheses can be proposed to explain this phenomenon. First, passive diffusion of activated PKCδ from the peduncle disseminating in the MBs axons until it translocates to mitochondria located in the vertical and medial lobes. Kinases are indeed known to be able to passively diffuse, an important mechanism for signal transduction (Kazmierczak and Lipniacki, 2009). Second, we recently found that mitochondrial motility is increased in the first hours following spaced training (Pavlowsky et al., 2024): mitochondria move from the MB neurons’ somas along the axons to the lobes in order to sustain the increased energy demand for the formation of LTM. One can thus hypothesize that the signal diffusion could also occur via the motility of mitochondria – upon spaced conditioning, activated PKCδ could ‘hitchhike’ into mitochondria at the level of the peduncle, and these PKCδ-loaded, activated mitochondria would then further move to the lobes. These two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and are both compatible with the interesting observation that upon MP1 activation, the measured level of PKCδ mitochondrial activation is stronger in the peduncle (Figure 4B) than in the vertical lobes (Figure 4C).

Although many different enzymes of the PKC family have been implicated in learning and memory in a large variety of model organisms (Van Der Zee and Douma, 1997), the particular contribution of PKCδ in memory formation and consolidation in mammals remains largely unknown. Nevertheless, PKCδ is highly expressed in brain regions associated with learning, and more specifically aversive learning and memory (Zafiri and Duvarci, 2022). In particular, it is found in the CA3 layer of the hippocampus, as well as in a specific region of the central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) called CE1 (Haubensak et al., 2010; see also https://mouse.brain-map.org/). There, PKCδ marks about 50% of CEl GABAergic neurons (Haubensak et al., 2010). Strikingly, it was shown that CeA is implicated in learning and consolidation of Pavlovian fear conditioning (Steinberg et al., 2020; Wilensky et al., 2006), and more specifically that PKCδ+neurons of the CeA projecting to the substantia innominata (SI) bidirectionally modulate negative reinforcement learning (Cui et al., 2017). However, no link between the function of PKCδ itself and memory consolidation or metabolism has been established yet, as the PKCδ-expressing feature of these neurons was only used as a means to genetically target them in the aforementioned studies. Our work thus sketches a possibly conserved role of neuronal PKCδ in the context of memory formation and consolidation in mammals, which nevertheless remains to be investigated. A possible role of PKCδ in plasticity mechanisms in mice was substantiated by the recent observation, in CA1 pyramidal neurons from mice organotypic slices, that stimulation-induced DAG production downstream of NMDA receptors (Colgan et al., 2018) can activate PKCδ in spines for local plasticity, and, at a longer timescale, its translocation to the nucleus for plasticity-induced transcription upon LTP formation (Colgan et al., 2023).

How is post-learning dopamine signaling coupled with PKCδ activation? DAMB is a dopamine receptor that has the ability to activate Gq with great efficiency and dopamine sensitivity (Himmelreich et al., 2017), which results in the production of DAG, a canonical activator of the majority of PKC enzymes. Once activated by DAG, the local hydrophobic patch generated by DAG fixation is thought to guide PKCs to various membranes (Hurley and Grobler, 1997), and notably to mitochondria in the case of PKCδ where it localizes to the intermembrane space (Acin-Perez et al., 2010; Kim and Hammerling, 2020). In addition, PKCδ is specific among PKCs in that it does not require activation loop phosphorylation for catalytic competence (Duquesnes et al., 2011). This direct link between DAG and PKCδ (and the absence of any requirement for PKCδ phosphorylation) may explain its physiological role as an efficient relay between extracellular cues sensed by receptors and intracellular metabolism at the level of the mitochondria. DAMB/Gq can also activate calcium signaling (Cassar et al., 2015; Himmelreich et al., 2017), the other canonical second-messenger pathway downstream of Gq. Since increases in mitochondrial calcium flux are another way to enhance PDH complex activity (Denton et al., 1972; Glancy and Balaban, 2012), one cannot exclude that mitochondrial calcium signaling may also play a role in the gating mechanism for LTM formation.

Gq/PKC signaling has also been shown to play a major role in memory in rodents. Mutation in the phosphosite of TrkB that binds phospholipase C (PLC) to produce DAG and activate PKC signaling impaired expression and maintenance of synaptic long-term potentiation in the hippocampus, and overall reduced learning in mice (Gruart et al., 2007; Minichiello et al., 2002). Thus, the Gq-DAG mechanism of PKCδ activation for memory consolidation could be conserved in mammals. While DAMB has no direct homology with mammalian dopaminergic receptors (instead belonging to an ‘invertebrate type’ class of receptors as demonstrated by sequence comparison Mustard et al., 2005), it should be noted that several mammalian dopamine receptors are also known to mobilize Gq signaling, such as the D1-D2 and the D5-D2 dopamine receptor heteromers (So et al., 2009; Young and Thomas, 2014). D1-like receptor can also directly engage with Gq/11 and therefore PLC (Rashid et al., 2007). In mammals, this non-canonical D1-like receptor/Gq coupling was notably found in the hippocampus and amygdala (Jin et al., 2001; Ming et al., 2006), two brain areas that are enriched in PKCδ+neurons (Haubensak et al., 2010; Zafiri and Duvarci, 2022). Anatomical studies demonstrate that both D1 and D2 receptors are expressed in the CeA, a region of the brain enriched in PKCδ+neurons (Zafiri and Duvarci, 2022). Periaqueductal gray/dorsal raphe (PAG/DR) afferent dopaminergic neurons exhibit phasic activation in response to an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US) and to a conditioned stimulus (CS) associated with the aversive US (Groessl et al., 2018; Zafiri and Duvarci, 2022), which could preferentially activate the D1 receptor-expressing CeA neurons during aversive learning (Zafiri and Duvarci, 2022). It would be of particular interest to explore the involvement of PKCδ neurons in this process, and to study whether PKCδ could be mobilized downstream of D1/Gq signaling in the context of aversive memory in mammals. Aside from dopaminergic receptors, a wide variety of memory-relevant receptors have been reported to activate Gq signaling, with adrenergic receptors being the most commonly cited kind. In physiological conditions, α-adrenergic receptors are considered to be the principal activators of Gq signaling (Duquesnes et al., 2011). β-adrenoreceptor subtypes are expressed in the hippocampus and amygdala; these regions receive noradrenergic afferences from the locus coeruleus, which plays a critical role in regulating behavioral memory in rodents, and are key for the processing of memories (Sara, 2009), and more specifically for their consolidation (Sara, 2009; Souza-Braga et al., 2018).

Here, we propose a model in which a state of high energy consumption in MB neuron axons necessary for LTM gating is prolonged by PKCδ, which boosts the PDH complex activity in MB mitochondria. Such a role is consistent with previous descriptions in non-neuronal mammalian cells. It is indeed known that PKCδ can regulate the PDH complex (Acin-Perez et al., 2010; Kim and Hammerling, 2020): activation of PKCδ leads to the phosphorylation of a putative PDK phosphatase, thereby enhancing its activity and promoting dephosphorylation of PDK, which inhibits it and thereby releases the inhibition it exerts on the PDH complex (Acin-Perez et al., 2010; Kim and Hammerling, 2020). As PDK knockdown rescued the LTM defect induced by PKCδ knockdown in our study, we propose that PKCδ boosts the PDH complex activity via this mechanism of PDK-Pase activation, resulting in PDK inhibition in MB neuronal mitochondria. This lasting effect of PKCδ on mitochondrial metabolism thus maintains the pyruvate flux upregulated in the mitochondria of the MBs lobes, which unlocks memory consolidation to form LTM. The temporality of these successive events following spaced training leading to the gating of LTM is also particularly interesting: first, the MP1 neurons fire for up to 2 hr, which activates PKCδ for more than 3 hr (Figure 5C and E) – once phosphorylated, PKCδ remain active until dephosphorylation by phosphatases (Kajimoto et al., 2010). Mitochondrial metabolism is then upregulated for more than 8 hr (Figure 6F, Figure 6—figure supplement 1F), even though PKCδ activity level is back to its baseline level at that timepoint (Figure 5D and F), which indicates that additional sustaining mechanisms relay PKCδ boosting effect on mitochondrial metabolism. For instance, one could speculate that mitochondrial motility, that is activated in the hours following spaced conditioning (Pavlowsky et al., 2024) alongside PKCδ activation and metabolic upregulation, could account for that long-term increase of the MB axons metabolic state by importing increasingly more mitochondria into the MB axons, while the resulting decrease in the number of mitochondria in the somas would therefore render them unable to maintain metabolic activation beyond 3 hr in this compartment (Figure 6—figure supplement 1B).

While our work uncovers a molecular switch controlling the metabolic upregulation of the MB neurons, the role for this enhanced pyruvate flux to mitochondria has not yet been unveiled. Several hypotheses could be considered, which are not mutually exclusive. First, increased pyruvate incorporation into the TCA cycle could lead to acceleration of oxidative phosphorylation and subsequent enhanced ATP production, in support of sustained neuronal activity or of the substantial energy cost of de novo protein synthesis on which LTM formation depends at later stages (Davis and Squire, 1984; Helmstetter et al., 2008; Jarome and Helmstetter, 2014). Second, acceleration of the TCA cycle and oxidative phosphorylation can also be accompanied by increased ROS production (Rosato et al., 2014), both of which are increasingly recognized as neuronal signaling molecules (Sinenko et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2016). Third, acceleration of the TCA cycle alone, decoupled from oxidative phosphorylation, could produce acetylcholine, the neurotransmitter used by MB neurons, and/or acyl groups that are crucial for subsequent epigenetic modifications. This non-canonical TCA cycle has recently been reported in a model of mammalian stem cells (Arnold et al., 2022). Finally, TCA cycle intermediates could be used for amino acid synthesis to fulfill the need for de novo protein synthesis, which is a hallmark of LTM.

Our study extends to the context of memory formation in neurons the beneficial role of PKCδ in the modulation of mitochondrial metabolism, whereas it was first extensively described in the mouse embryonic fibroblast (Acin-Perez et al., 2010). There, PKCδ serves as an indispensable supervisor of mitochondrial energy production: by sensing the cytochrome c redox state as a proxy of the respiratory chain workload, it adjusts mitochondrial metabolism within safe margins (that can be overpassed when fuel flux surpasses the capacity of the electron-transport chain, causing detrimental ROS release; Acin-Perez et al., 2010; Kim and Hammerling, 2020). Strikingly, PKCδ was also widely described as detrimental to cells in pathological conditions, with a well-characterized role in cardiac (Inagaki et al., 2003; Zaja et al., 2014) and neuronal (Bright et al., 2004; Dave et al., 2011; Phan et al., 2002) cell death upon ischemic incidents. In this model, PKCδ takes part in apoptotic events through a caspase-induced signaling cascade in mitochondria, notably via cleavage by caspase-3 at the PKCδ caspase-dependent cleavage site, which releases a 40 kDa active fragment. Furthermore, transient episodes of ischemia can also activate PKCδ through ROS-dependent mechanisms, leading to its phosphorylation and subsequent activation. PKCδ can then bind and phosphorylate Drp1, a major mitochondrial fission protein, thereby increasing its activity. This mechanism was described in cardiomyocytes during anoxia-reoxygenation injury (Zaja et al., 2014), and in neurons under oxidative stress in cellulo, as well as in vivo in the context of hypertension-induced encephalopathy (Qi et al., 2011). Finally, PKCδ has been implicated in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) (Du et al., 2018) and Parkinson’s disease (PD) (Kaul et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2007). However, a number of these studies should be considered carefully, as some of their results are based on PKCδ inhibition by rottlerin, which has been found to be an inappropriate and ineffective PKCδ pharmacological inhibitor (Soltoff, 2007). Nevertheless, various pieces of evidence show increased expression of PKCδ in AD patients (Du et al., 2018), pointing towards the fact that PKCδ inhibition plays an important protective role in brain aging (Conboy et al., 2009), ischemia (Bright et al., 2004; Dave et al., 2011; Phan et al., 2002), and neurodegenerative disease (Du et al., 2018; Kaul et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2007).

Altogether, it is now emerging that PKCδ is functionally ambivalent: while its role in metabolism regulation maintains essential physiological functions such as LTM gating in the brain as demonstrated in this study, stress conditions unveil negative effects mediated by this kinase that derail the system equilibrium. The interplay between the two modes of activation of PKCδ by DAG and oxidative stress is probably at the heart of its contrasting duality. Expanding upon our work, it could be of particular interest to explore whether competition between PKCδ activation via these two modes, DAG and oxidative stress, occurs upon aging and/or pathology.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files; source data files have been provided that contain numerical data used to generate all figures.

1. 1. Abel T
   2. Martin KC
   3. Bartsch D
   4. Kandel ER

   (1998) Memory suppressor genes: inhibitory constraints on the storage of long-term memory

   Science 279:338–341.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5349.338

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Acin-Perez R
   2. Hoyos B
   3. Gong J
   4. Vinogradov V
   5. Fischman DA
   6. Leitges M
   7. Borhan B
   8. Starkov A
   9. Manfredi G
   10. Hammerling U

   (2010) Regulation of intermediary metabolism by the PKCdelta signalosome in mitochondria

   FASEB Journal 24:5033–5042.

   https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.10-166934

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Alzamora R
   2. Brown LR
   3. Harvey BJ

   (2007) Direct binding and activation of protein kinase C isoforms by aldosterone and 17beta-estradiol

   Molecular Endocrinology 21:2637–2650.

   https://doi.org/10.1210/me.2006-0559

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Arnold PK
   2. Jackson BT
   3. Paras KI
   4. Brunner JS
   5. Hart ML
   6. Newsom OJ
   7. Alibeckoff SP
   8. Endress J
   9. Drill E
   10. Sullivan LB
   11. Finley LWS

   (2022) A non-canonical tricarboxylic acid cycle underlies cellular identity

   Nature 603:477–481.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04475-w

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Aso Y
   2. Grübel K
   3. Busch S
   4. Friedrich AB
   5. Siwanowicz I
   6. Tanimoto H

   (2009) The mushroom body of adult Drosophila characterized by GAL4 drivers

   Journal of Neurogenetics 23:156–172.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/01677060802471718

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Aso Y
   2. Hattori D
   3. Yu Y
   4. Johnston RM
   5. Iyer NA
   6. Ngo TTB
   7. Dionne H
   8. Abbott LF
   9. Axel R
   10. Tanimoto H
   11. Rubin GM

   (2014) The neuronal architecture of the mushroom body provides a logic for associative learning

   eLife 3:e04577.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04577

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bouzaiane E
   2. Trannoy S
   3. Scheunemann L
   4. Plaçais PY
   5. Preat T

   (2015) Two independent mushroom body output circuits retrieve the six discrete components of Drosophila aversive memory

   Cell Reports 11:1280–1292.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.04.044

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bright R
   2. Raval AP
   3. Dembner JM
   4. Pérez-Pinzón MA
   5. Steinberg GK
   6. Yenari MA
   7. Mochly-Rosen D

   (2004) Protein kinase C delta mediates cerebral reperfusion injury in vivo

   The Journal of Neuroscience 24:6880–6888.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4474-03.2004

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Cai H
   2. Haubensak W
   3. Anthony TE
   4. Anderson DJ

   (2014) Central amygdala PKC-δ(+) neurons mediate the influence of multiple anorexigenic signals

   Nature Neuroscience 17:1240–1248.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3767

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cassar M
    2. Issa AR
    3. Riemensperger T
    4. Petitgas C
    5. Rival T
    6. Coulom H
    7. Iché-Torres M
    8. Han KA
    9. Birman S

    (2015) A dopamine receptor contributes to paraquat-induced neurotoxicity in Drosophila

    Human Molecular Genetics 24:197–212.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddu430

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Colgan LA
    2. Hu M
    3. Misler JA
    4. Parra-Bueno P
    5. Moran CM
    6. Leitges M
    7. Yasuda R

    (2018) PKCα integrates spatiotemporally distinct Ca²⁺ and autocrine BDNF signaling to facilitate synaptic plasticity

    Nature Neuroscience 21:1027–1037.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0184-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Colgan LA
    2. Parra-Bueno P
    3. Holman HL
    4. Tu X
    5. Jain A
    6. Calubag MF
    7. Misler JA
    8. Gary C
    9. Oz G
    10. Suponitsky-Kroyter I
    11. Okaz E
    12. Yasuda R

    (2023) Dual regulation of spine-specific and synapse-to-nucleus signaling by PKCδ during plasticity

    The Journal of Neuroscience 43:5432–5447.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0208-22.2023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Conboy L
    2. Foley AG
    3. O’Boyle NM
    4. Lawlor M
    5. Gallagher HC
    6. Murphy KJ
    7. Regan CM

    (2009) Curcumin-induced degradation of PKC delta is associated with enhanced dentate NCAM PSA expression and spatial learning in adult and aged Wistar rats

    Biochemical Pharmacology 77:1254–1265.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2008.12.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Cui Y
    2. Lv G
    3. Jin S
    4. Peng J
    5. Yuan J
    6. He X
    7. Gong H
    8. Xu F
    9. Xu T
    10. Li H

    (2017) A central amygdala-substantia innominata neural circuitry encodes aversive reinforcement signals

    Cell Reports 21:1770–1782.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.062

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Dave KR
    2. Bhattacharya SK
    3. Saul I
    4. DeFazio RA
    5. Dezfulian C
    6. Lin HW
    7. Raval AP
    8. Perez-Pinzon MA

    (2011) Activation of protein kinase C delta following cerebral ischemia leads to release of cytochrome C from the mitochondria via bad pathway

    PLOS ONE 6:e22057.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022057

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Davie K
    2. Janssens J
    3. Koldere D
    4. De Waegeneer M
    5. Pech U
    6. Kreft Ł
    7. Aibar S
    8. Makhzami S
    9. Christiaens V
    10. Bravo González-Blas C
    11. Poovathingal S
    12. Hulselmans G
    13. Spanier KI
    14. Moerman T
    15. Vanspauwen B
    16. Geurs S
    17. Voet T
    18. Lammertyn J
    19. Thienpont B
    20. Liu S
    21. Konstantinides N
    22. Fiers M
    23. Verstreken P
    24. Aerts S

    (2018) A Single-cell transcriptome atlas of the aging Drosophila Brain

    Cell 174:982–998.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.057

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Davis HP
    2. Squire LR

    (1984)

    Protein synthesis and memory: a review

    Psychological Bulletin 96:518–559.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Denton RM
    2. Randle PJ
    3. Martin BR

    (1972) Stimulation by calcium ions of pyruvate dehydrogenase phosphate phosphatase

    Biochemical Journal 128:161–163.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1280161

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Dilly GA
    2. Kittleman CW
    3. Kerr TM
    4. Messing RO
    5. Mayfield RD

    (2022) Cell-type specific changes in PKC-delta neurons of the central amygdala during alcohol withdrawal

    Translational Psychiatry 12:289.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-02063-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Dolan MJ
    2. Belliart-Guérin G
    3. Bates AS
    4. Frechter S
    5. Lampin-Saint-Amaux A
    6. Aso Y
    7. Roberts RJV
    8. Schlegel P
    9. Wong A
    10. Hammad A
    11. Bock D
    12. Rubin GM
    13. Preat T
    14. Plaçais PY
    15. Jefferis G

    (2018) Communication from learned to innate olfactory processing centers is required for memory retrieval in Drosophila

    Neuron 100:651–668.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Du Y
    2. Zhao Y
    3. Li C
    4. Zheng Q
    5. Tian J
    6. Li Z
    7. Huang TY
    8. Zhang W
    9. Xu H

    (2018) Inhibition of PKCδ reduces amyloid-β levels and reverses Alzheimer disease phenotypes

    The Journal of Experimental Medicine 215:1665–1677.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20171193

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Duquesnes N
    2. Lezoualc’h F
    3. Crozatier B

    (2011) PKC-delta and PKC-epsilon: foes of the same family or strangers?

    Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology 51:665–673.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjmcc.2011.07.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Gervasi N
    2. Tchénio P
    3. Preat T

    (2010) PKA dynamics in a Drosophila learning center: coincidence detection by rutabaga adenylyl cyclase and spatial regulation by dunce phosphodiesterase

    Neuron 65:516–529.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Glancy B
    2. Balaban RS

    (2012) Role of mitochondrial Ca2+ in the regulation of cellular energetics

    Biochemistry 51:2959–2973.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/bi2018909

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Glas A
    2. Hübener M
    3. Bonhoeffer T
    4. Goltstein PM

    (2021) Spaced training enhances memory and prefrontal ensemble stability in mice

    Current Biology 31:4052–4061.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.085

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Groessl F
    2. Munsch T
    3. Meis S
    4. Griessner J
    5. Kaczanowska J
    6. Pliota P
    7. Kargl D
    8. Badurek S
    9. Kraitsy K
    10. Rassoulpour A
    11. Zuber J
    12. Lessmann V
    13. Haubensak W

    (2018) Dorsal tegmental dopamine neurons gate associative learning of fear

    Nature Neuroscience 21:952–962.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0174-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Gruart A
    2. Sciarretta C
    3. Valenzuela-Harrington M
    4. Delgado-García JM
    5. Minichiello L

    (2007) Mutation at the TrkB PLC{gamma}-docking site affects hippocampal LTP and associative learning in conscious mice

    Learning & Memory 14:54–62.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.428307

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Hamada FN
    2. Rosenzweig M
    3. Kang K
    4. Pulver SR
    5. Ghezzi A
    6. Jegla TJ
    7. Garrity PA

    (2008) An internal thermal sensor controlling temperature preference in Drosophila

    Nature 454:217–220.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Haubensak W
    2. Kunwar PS
    3. Cai H
    4. Ciocchi S
    5. Wall NR
    6. Ponnusamy R
    7. Biag J
    8. Dong HW
    9. Deisseroth K
    10. Callaway EM
    11. Fanselow MS
    12. Lüthi A
    13. Anderson DJ

    (2010) Genetic dissection of an amygdala microcircuit that gates conditioned fear

    Nature 468:270–276.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09553

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Heisenberg M

    (2003) Mushroom body memoir: from maps to models

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 4:266–275.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1074

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Helmstetter FJ
    2. Parsons RG
    3. Gafford GM

    (2008) Macromolecular synthesis, distributed synaptic plasticity, and fear conditioning

    Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 89:324–337.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2007.09.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Hige T

    (2018) What can tiny mushrooms in fruit flies tell us about learning and memory?

    Neuroscience Research 129:8–16.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2017.05.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Himmelreich S
    2. Masuho I
    3. Berry JA
    4. MacMullen C
    5. Skamangas NK
    6. Martemyanov KA
    7. Davis RL

    (2017) Dopamine receptor DAMB signals via Gq to mediate forgetting in Drosophila

    Cell Reports 21:2074–2081.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Hurley JH
    2. Grobler JA

    (1997) Protein kinase C and phospholipase C: bilayer interactions and regulation

    Current Opinion in Structural Biology 7:557–565.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-440x(97)80122-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Inagaki K
    2. Chen L
    3. Ikeno F
    4. Lee FH
    5. Imahashi K
    6. Bouley DM
    7. Rezaee M
    8. Yock PG
    9. Murphy E
    10. Mochly-Rosen D

    (2003) Inhibition of delta-protein kinase C protects against reperfusion injury of the ischemic heart in vivo

    Circulation 108:2304–2307.

    https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000101682.24138.36

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Jacob PF
    2. Waddell S

    (2020) Spaced training forms complementary long-term memories of opposite valence in Drosophila

    Neuron 106:977–991.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.03.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Jarome TJ
    2. Helmstetter FJ

    (2014) Protein degradation and protein synthesis in long-term memory formation

    Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 7:61.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2014.00061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Jin LQ
    2. Wang HY
    3. Friedman E

    (2001) Stimulated D(1) dopamine receptors couple to multiple Galpha proteins in different brain regions

    Journal of Neurochemistry 78:981–990.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-4159.2001.00470.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Kajimoto T
    2. Sawamura S
    3. Tohyama Y
    4. Mori Y
    5. Newton AC

    (2010) Protein kinase C {delta}-specific activity reporter reveals agonist-evoked nuclear activity controlled by Src family of kinases

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 285:41896–41910.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.184028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kaul S
    2. Anantharam V
    3. Yang Y
    4. Choi CJ
    5. Kanthasamy A
    6. Kanthasamy AG

    (2005) Tyrosine phosphorylation regulates the proteolytic activation of protein kinase cδ in dopaminergic neuronal cells

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 280:28721–28730.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M501092200

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Kazmierczak B
    2. Lipniacki T

    (2009) Regulation of kinase activity by diffusion and feedback

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 259:291–296.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.03.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Kim YK
    2. Hammerling U

    (2020) The mitochondrial PKCδ/retinol signal complex exerts real-time control on energy homeostasis

    Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Biol Lipids 1865:158614.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbalip.2020.158614

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Lavington E
    2. Cogni R
    3. Kuczynski C
    4. Koury S
    5. Behrman EL
    6. O’Brien KR
    7. Schmidt PS
    8. Eanes WF

    (2014) A small system--high-resolution study of metabolic adaptation in the central metabolic pathway to temperate climates in Drosophila melanogaster

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 31:2032–2041.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu146

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Liu C
    2. Plaçais PY
    3. Yamagata N
    4. Pfeiffer BD
    5. Aso Y
    6. Friedrich AB
    7. Siwanowicz I
    8. Rubin GM
    9. Preat T
    10. Tanimoto H

    (2012) A subset of dopamine neurons signals reward for odour memory in Drosophila

    Nature 488:512–516.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11304

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Lutas A
    2. Wahlmark CJ
    3. Acharjee S
    4. Kawasaki F

    (2012) Genetic analysis in Drosophila reveals a role for the mitochondrial protein p32 in synaptic transmission

    G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 2:59–69.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.111.001586

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. McGuire SE
    2. Le PT
    3. Osborn AJ
    4. Matsumoto K
    5. Davis RL

    (2003) Spatiotemporal rescue of memory dysfunction in Drosophila

    Science 302:1765–1768.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089035

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Mery F
    2. Kawecki TJ

    (2005) A cost of long-term memory in Drosophila

    Science 308:1148.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111331

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Ming Y
    2. Zhang H
    3. Long L
    4. Wang F
    5. Chen J
    6. Zhen X

    (2006) Modulation of Ca2+ signals by phosphatidylinositol-linked novel D1 dopamine receptor in hippocampal neurons

    Journal of Neurochemistry 98:1316–1323.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03961.x

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Minichiello L
    2. Calella AM
    3. Medina DL
    4. Bonhoeffer T
    5. Klein R
    6. Korte M

    (2002) Mechanism of TrkB-mediated hippocampal long-term potentiation

    Neuron 36:121–137.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00942-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Mizuno N
    2. Itoh H

    (2009) Functions and regulatory mechanisms of Gq-signaling pathways

    Neuro-Signals 17:42–54.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000186689

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Mustard JA
    2. Beggs KT
    3. Mercer AR

    (2005) Molecular biology of the invertebrate dopamine receptors

    Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 59:103–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.20065

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Nishijima S
    2. Maruyama IN

    (2017) Appetitive olfactory learning and long-term associative memory in Caenorhabditis elegans

    Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 11:80.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00080

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Padamsey Z
    2. Rochefort NL

    (2023) Paying the brain’s energy bill

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 78:102668.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2022.102668

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Pascual A
    2. Préat T

    (2001) Localization of long-term memory within the Drosophila mushroom body

    Science 294:1115–1117.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1064200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Pavlowsky A
    2. Comyn T
    3. Minatchy J
    4. Geny D
    5. Bun P
    6. Danglot L
    7. Preat T
    8. Plaçais PY

    (2024) Spaced training activates Miro/Milton-dependent mitochondrial dynamics in neuronal axons to sustain long-term memory

    Current Biology 34:1904–1917.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.03.050

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Phan TG
    2. Wright PM
    3. Markus R
    4. Howells DW
    5. Davis SM
    6. Donnan GA

    (2002) Salvaging the ischaemic penumbra: more than just reperfusion?

    Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology & Physiology 29:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1681.2002.03609.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Plaçais PY
    2. Trannoy S
    3. Isabel G
    4. Aso Y
    5. Siwanowicz I
    6. Belliart-Guérin G
    7. Vernier P
    8. Birman S
    9. Tanimoto H
    10. Preat T

    (2012) Slow oscillations in two pairs of dopaminergic neurons gate long-term memory formation in Drosophila

    Nature Neuroscience 15:592–599.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3055

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Plaçais PY
    2. Preat T

    (2013) To favor survival under food shortage, the brain disables costly memory

    Science 339:440–442.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Plaçais PY
    2. de Tredern É
    3. Scheunemann L
    4. Trannoy S
    5. Goguel V
    6. Han KA
    7. Isabel G
    8. Preat T

    (2017) Upregulated energy metabolism in the Drosophila mushroom body is the trigger for long-term memory

    Nature Communications 8:15510.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15510

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Qi X
    2. Disatnik MH
    3. Shen N
    4. Sobel RA
    5. Mochly-Rosen D

    (2011) Aberrant mitochondrial fission in neurons induced by protein kinase Cδ under oxidative stress conditions in vivo

    Molecular Biology of the Cell 22:256–265.

    https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E10-06-0551

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Quinn WG
    2. Harris WA
    3. Benzer S

    (1974) Conditioned behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

    PNAS 71:708–712.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.71.3.708

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Rabah Y
    2. Francés R
    3. Minatchy J
    4. Guédon L
    5. Desnous C
    6. Plaçais PY
    7. Preat T

    (2023) Glycolysis-derived alanine from glia fuels neuronal mitochondria for memory in Drosophila

    Nature Metabolism 5:2002–2019.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-023-00910-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Rashid AJ
    2. O’Dowd BF
    3. Verma V
    4. George SR

    (2007) Neuronal Gq/11-coupled dopamine receptors: an uncharted role for dopamine

    Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 28:551–555.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2007.10.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Rosato RR
    2. Fernandez R
    3. Paz LI
    4. Singh CR
    5. Rosato AE

    (2014) TCA cycle-mediated generation of ROS is a key mediator for HeR-MRSA survival under β-lactam antibiotic exposure

    PLOS ONE 9:e99605.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099605

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. San Martín A
    2. Ceballo S
    3. Baeza-Lehnert F
    4. Lerchundi R
    5. Valdebenito R
    6. Contreras-Baeza Y
    7. Alegría K
    8. Barros LF

    (2014) Imaging mitochondrial flux in single cells with a fret sensor for pyruvate

    PLOS ONE 9:e85780.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085780

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Sara SJ

    (2009) The locus coeruleus and noradrenergic modulation of cognition

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 10:211–223.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2573

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Scheunemann L
    2. Plaçais PY
    3. Dromard Y
    4. Schwärzel M
    5. Preat T

    (2018) Dunce phosphodiesterase acts as a checkpoint for Drosophila long-term memory in a pair of serotonergic neurons

    Neuron 98:350–365.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Séjourné J
    2. Plaçais PY
    3. Aso Y
    4. Siwanowicz I
    5. Trannoy S
    6. Thoma V
    7. Tedjakumala SR
    8. Rubin GM
    9. Tchénio P
    10. Ito K
    11. Isabel G
    12. Tanimoto H
    13. Preat T

    (2011) Mushroom body efferent neurons responsible for aversive olfactory memory retrieval in Drosophila

    Nature Neuroscience 14:903–910.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2846

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Shaughnessy JJ

    (1977) Long-term retention and the spacing effect in free-recall and frequency judgments

    The American Journal of Psychology 90:587.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1421733

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Shieh BH
    2. Parker L
    3. Popescu D

    (2002) Protein kinase C (PKC) isoforms in Drosophila

    Journal of Biochemistry 132:523–527.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a003252

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Silva B
    2. Mantha OL
    3. Schor J
    4. Pascual A
    5. Plaçais PY
    6. Pavlowsky A
    7. Preat T

    (2022) Glia fuel neurons with locally synthesized ketone bodies to sustain memory under starvation

    Nature Metabolism 4:213–224.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-022-00528-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Sinenko SA
    2. Starkova TY
    3. Kuzmin AA
    4. Tomilin AN

    (2021) Physiological signaling functions of reactive oxygen species in stem cells: from flies to man

    Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 9:714370.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.714370

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. So CH
    2. Verma V
    3. Alijaniaram M
    4. Cheng R
    5. Rashid AJ
    6. O’Dowd BF
    7. George SR

    (2009) Calcium signaling by dopamine D5 receptor and D5-D2 receptor hetero-oligomers occurs by a mechanism distinct from that for dopamine D1-D2 receptor hetero-oligomers

    Molecular Pharmacology 75:843–854.

    https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.108.051805

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Soltoff SP

    (2007) Rottlerin: an inappropriate and ineffective inhibitor of PKCdelta

    Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 28:453–458.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2007.07.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Souza-Braga P
    2. Lorena FB
    3. Nascimento BPP
    4. Marcelino CP
    5. Ravache TT
    6. Ricci E
    7. Bernardi MM
    8. Ribeiro MO

    (2018) Adrenergic receptor β3 is involved in the memory consolidation process in mice

    Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research = Revista Brasileira de Pesquisas Medicas e Biologicas 51:e7564.

    https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20187564

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Steinberg EE
    2. Gore F
    3. Heifets BD
    4. Taylor MD
    5. Norville ZC
    6. Beier KT
    7. Földy C
    8. Lerner TN
    9. Luo L
    10. Deisseroth K
    11. Malenka RC

    (2020) Amygdala-midbrain connections modulate appetitive and aversive learning

    Neuron 106:1026–1043.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.03.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Sutton MA
    2. Ide J
    3. Masters SE
    4. Carew TJ

    (2002) Interaction between amount and pattern of training in the induction of intermediate- and long-term memory for sensitization in aplysia

    Learning & Memory 9:29–40.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.44802

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Tully T
    2. Preat T
    3. Boynton SC
    4. Del Vecchio M

    (1994) Genetic dissection of consolidated memory in Drosophila

    Cell 79:35–47.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(94)90398-0

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Turrel O
    2. Goguel V
    3. Preat T

    (2018) Amnesiac is required in the adult mushroom body for memory formation

    The Journal of Neuroscience 38:9202–9214.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0876-18.2018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Van Der Zee EA
    2. Douma BRK

    (1997) Historical review of research on protein kinase C in learning1019 and memory

    Prog Neuro Psychopharmacol Bio Psychiat 1:e4.004.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Wang X
    2. Zhang Y
    3. Wang X
    4. Dai J
    5. Hua R
    6. Zeng S
    7. Li H

    (2020) Anxiety-related cell-type-specific neural circuits in the anterior-dorsal bed nucleus of the stria terminalis

    Science Bulletin 65:1203–1216.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2020.03.028

    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Wilensky AE
    2. Schafe GE
    3. Kristensen MP
    4. LeDoux JE

    (2006) Rethinking the fear circuit: the central nucleus of the amygdala is required for the acquisition, consolidation, and expression of pavlovian fear conditioning

    The Journal of Neuroscience 26:12387–12396.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4316-06.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Williford KM
    2. Taylor A
    3. Melchior JR
    4. Yoon HJ
    5. Sale E
    6. Negasi MD
    7. Adank DN
    8. Brown JA
    9. Bedenbaugh MN
    10. Luchsinger JR
    11. Centanni SW
    12. Patel S
    13. Calipari ES
    14. Simerly RB
    15. Winder DG

    (2023) BNST PKCδ neurons are activated by specific aversive conditions to promote anxiety-like behavior

    Neuropsychopharmacology 48:1031–1041.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-023-01569-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Wu-Zhang AX
    2. Murphy AN
    3. Bachman M
    4. Newton AC

    (2012) Isozyme-specific interaction of protein kinase Cδ with mitochondria dissected using live cell fluorescence imaging

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 287:37891–37906.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.412635

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Yang Y
    2. Kaul S
    3. Zhang D
    4. Anantharam V
    5. Kanthasamy AG

    (2004) Suppression of caspase-3-dependent proteolytic activation of protein kinase C delta by small interfering RNA prevents MPP+-induced dopaminergic degeneration

    Molecular and Cellular Neurosciences 25:406–421.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcn.2003.11.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Young MB
    2. Thomas SA

    (2014) M1-muscarinic receptors promote fear memory consolidation via phospholipase C and the M-current

    The Journal of Neuroscience 34:1570–1578.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1040-13.2014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Yu D
    2. Akalal DBG
    3. Davis RL

    (2006) Drosophila alpha/beta mushroom body neurons form a branch-specific, long-term cellular memory trace after spaced olfactory conditioning

    Neuron 52:845–855.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.10.030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Zafiri D
    2. Duvarci S

    (2022) Dopaminergic circuits underlying associative aversive learning

    Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 16:1041929.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2022.1041929

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Zaja I
    2. Bai X
    3. Liu Y
    4. Kikuchi C
    5. Dosenovic S
    6. Yan Y
    7. Canfield SG
    8. Bosnjak ZJ

    (2014) Cdk1, PKCδ and calcineurin-mediated Drp1 pathway contributes to mitochondrial fission-induced cardiomyocyte death

    Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 453:710–721.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.09.144

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Zhang D
    2. Anantharam V
    3. Kanthasamy A
    4. Kanthasamy AG

    (2007) Neuroprotective effect of protein kinase C delta inhibitor rottlerin in cell culture and animal models of Parkinson’s disease

    The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 322:913–922.

    https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.107.124669

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Zhang J
    2. Wang X
    3. Vikash V
    4. Ye Q
    5. Wu D
    6. Liu Y
    7. Dong W

    (2016) ROS and ROS-mediated cellular signaling

    Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2016:4350965.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4350965

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Typhaine Comyn

   Energy & Memory, Brain Plasticity Unit, CNRS, ESPCI Paris, PSL Research University, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Thomas Preat

   Energy & Memory, Brain Plasticity Unit, CNRS, ESPCI Paris, PSL Research University, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Alice Pavlowsky

   Energy & Memory, Brain Plasticity Unit, CNRS, ESPCI Paris, PSL Research University, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   alice.pavlowsky@espci.fr

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6873-0577

4. Pierre-Yves Plaçais

   Energy & Memory, Brain Plasticity Unit, CNRS, ESPCI Paris, PSL Research University, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   pierre-yves.placais@espci.fr

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8426-4465

• 548

  views

• 53

  downloads

• 2

  citations

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