Octopamine integrates the status of internal energy supply into the formation of food-related memories

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The present study by Berger et al. analyzes to what extent memory formation is dependent on available energy reserves. This has been dealt with extensively in the case of aversive memory formation, but only very sparsely in the case of appetitive memory formation. It has long been known that an appetitive memory in flies can only be formed by starvation. However, the authors here additionally show that not only the duration of starvation plays a role, but also determines which form of memory (short- or long-term memory) is formed. The authors demonstrated that internal glycogen stores play a role in this process and that this is achieved through insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons that integrates internal energy stores into memory formation. Here, the authors suggest that octopamine plays a role as a negative regulator of different forms of memory.

The study sheds light on an old question, to what extent the octopaminergic neuronal system plays a role in the formation of appetitive memory, since in recent years only the dopaminergic system has been in focus. Furthermore, the data are an interesting contribution to the ongoing debate whether insulin receptors play a role in neurons themselves or in glial cells. The experiments are very well designed and the authors used a variety of behavioural experiments, genetic tools to manipulate neuronal activity and state-of-the-art imaging techniques. In addition, they not only clearly demonstrated that octopamine is a negative regulator of appetitive memory formation, but also proposed a mechanism by which the insulin receptor in octopaminergic neurons senses the internal energy status and then controls the activity of those neurons. The conclusions are mostly supported by the data, but some aspects related to the experimental design, some explanations and literature references need more clarification and revision.

1. Usually, long-term memory (LTM) is tested 24 hours after training. Here, the authors usually refer to LTM as a memory that is tested 6 hours after training. The addition of a control experiment to show that LTM that the authors observe here lasts longer would increase the power of this study immensely.

2. The authors define here another consolidated memory component as ARM, when they applied a cold-shock 2 hours after training. However, some publications showed that LTM is formed after only one training cycle (Krashes et al 2008, Tempel et al 1983). This makes it difficult to determine, whether appetitive ARM can be formed. Furthermore, one study showed that appetitive ARM is absent after massed training (Colomb et al 2009). Therefore, the conclusion could be also, that different starvation protocols, would lead to different stabilities of LTM. Therefore, additional experiments could help to clarify this opposing explanation. From these results, it can then be concluded either that different stable forms of LTM are formed depending on the starvation state, or that two differently consolidated memory phases (LTM, ARM) are formed, as has already been shown for aversive memory. This is also important for other statements in the manuscript, and therefore the authors should address this. For example, the findings about the insulin receptor (is it two opposing memories or different stabilities of LTM).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

How organism physiological state modulates establishment and perdurance of memories is a timely question that the authors aimed at addressing by studying the interplay between energy homeostasis and food-related conditioning in Drosophila. Specifically, they studied how starvation modulates the establishment of short-term vs long-term memories and clarified the role of the monoamine Octopamine in food-related conditioning, showing that it is not per se involved in formation of appetitive short-term memories but rather gates memory formation by suppressing LTM when energy levels are high. This work clarifies previously described phenotypes and provides insight about interconnections between energy levels, feeding and formation of short-term and long-term food-related memories. In the absence of population-specific manipulation of octopamine signaling, it however does not reach a circuit-level understanding of how these different processes are integrated.

Strengths
- Previous studies have documented the impact of Octopamine on different aspects of food-related behaviors (regulation of energy homeostasis, feeding, sugar sensing, appetitive memory...), but we currently lack a clear understanding of how these different functions are interconnected. The authors have used a variety of experimental approaches to systematically test the impact of internal energy levels in establishment of appetitive memory and the role of Octopamine in this process.

- The authors have used a range of approaches, performed carefully controlled experiments and produced high quality data.

Weaknesses
1- In the tbh mutant flies, Tyramine -to- Octopamine conversion is inhibited, resulting not only in a lack of Octopamine, but also in elevated levels of Tyramine. If and how elevated levels of Tyramine contributes to the described phenotypes is unclear. In the current version of the manuscript, only one set of experiments (Figure 2) has been performed using Octopamine agonist. This is particularly important in light of recent published data showing that starvation modifies Tyramine levels.

2- Octopamine (and its precursor Tyramine) have been implicated in numerous processes, complicating the analysis of the phenotypes resulting from a general inhibition of tbh.

3- The manuscript explores various aspects of the impact of energy levels on food-related behaviors and the underlying sensing and effector mechanism, both in wild-type and tbh mutants, making it difficult to follow the flow of the results.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Berger et al. study how internal energy storage influence learning and memory. Since in Drosophila melanogaster, octopamine (OA) is involved in the regulation of energy homeostasis they focus on the roles of OA. To do so they use the tyramine-β-hydroxylase (Tbh) mutant that is lacking the neurotransmitter OA and study short term memory (STM), long-term memory (LTM) and anesthesia-resistant memory (ARM). They show that the duration of starvation affects the magnitude of both short- and long-term memory. In addition, they show that OA has a suppressive effect on learning and memory. In terms of energy storage, they show that internal glycogen storage influences how long sucrose is remembered and high glycogen suppresses memory. Finally, they show that insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic neurons, which is also related to internal energy storage, suppresses learning and memory.

This is an important study that extends our knowledge on OA activity in learning and memory and the effects the metabolic state has on learning and memory. The authors nicely use the genetic tools available in flies to try and unravel the complex circuitry of metabolic state level, OA activity and learning and memory.
Nevertheless, I do have some comments that I think require attention:

1. The authors use RNAi to reduce the level of glycogen synthase or glycogen phosphorylase. These manipulations are expected to affect the level of glycogen. Using specific drivers the authors attempt to manipulate glycogen level at the muscles and fat bodies and examine how this affects learning and memory. The conclusions of the authors arise solely from the manipulation intended (i.e. the genetics). However, the authors also directly measured glycogen levels at these organs and those do not follow the manipulation intended, i.e. the RNAi had very limited effect on the glycogen level. Nevertheless, these results are ignored.

2. The authors claim in the summary that OA is not required for STM. However, according to one experiment OA is required for STM as Tbh mutants cannot form STM. In another experiment OA is suppressive to STM as wt flies fed with OA cannot form STM. Therefore, it is very difficult to appreciate the actual role of OA on STM.

3. The authors use t-test and ANOVA for most of the statistics, however, they did not perform normality tests. While I am quite sure that most datasets will pass normality test, nevertheless, this is required.

4. While it is logical to assume that OA neurons are upstream to R15A04 DA neurons, I am not sure this really arises from the experiment that is presented here. It is well established that without activity in R15A04 DA neurons there is no LTM. Since OA acts to decrease LTM, can one really conclude anything about the location of OA effect when there is no learning?

5. It is unclear how expression of a dominant negative form of insulin receptor (InR) in OA neurons can rescue the lack of OA due to the Tbh mutation. If OA neurons cannot release anything to the presumably downstream DA neurons, how can changing their internal signaling has any effect?

While I stressed some comments that need to be addressed, the overall take-home message of the manuscript is supported and the authors do show that the metabolic state of the animal affects learning and memory. I do think though, that some more caution is required for some of the conclusions.