Taste triggers a homeostatic temperature control in Drosophila

Yujiro Umezaki; Sergio Hidalgo; Erika Nguyen; Tiffany Nguyen; Jay Suh; Sheena S. Uchino; Joanna C. Chiu; Fumika N. Hamada

doi:10.7554/eLife.94703.1

eLife assessment

This paper presents valuable findings that gustation and nutrition might independently influence the preferred environmental temperature in flies. While some of the evidence is solid, support for other claims appears incomplete at this stage but can be addressed with some further experimentation. The finding that flies might thus exhibit a cephalic phase response similar to mammals will be of value for future investigations.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.94703.1.sa3

Significance of findings

valuable: Findings that have theoretical or practical implications for a subfield

landmark
fundamental
important
valuable
useful

Strength of evidence

solid: Methods, data and analyses broadly support the claims with only minor weaknesses

incomplete: Main claims are only partially supported

exceptional
compelling
convincing
solid
incomplete
inadequate

During the peer-review process the editor and reviewers write an eLife assessment that summarises the significance of the findings reported in the article (on a scale ranging from landmark to useful) and the strength of the evidence (on a scale ranging from exceptional to inadequate). Learn more about eLife assessments

Abstract

Summary

Hungry animals consistently show a desperate desire to obtain food. Even a brief sensory detection of food can trigger bursts of physiological and behavioral changes. However, the underlying mechanisms by which the sensation of food triggers the acute behavioral response remain elusive. We have previously shown in Drosophila that hunger drives a preference for low temperature. Because Drosophila is a small ectotherm, a preference for low temperature implies a low body temperature and a low metabolic rate. Here, we show that taste sensing triggers a switch from a low to a high temperature preference in hungry flies. We show that taste stimulation by artificial sweeteners or optogenetics triggers an acute warm preference, but is not sufficient to reach the fed state. Instead, nutrient intake is required to reach the fed state. The data suggest that starvation recovery is controlled by two components: taste-evoked and nutrient-induced warm preferences, and that taste and nutrient quality play distinct roles in starvation recovery. Animals are motivated to eat based on time of day or hunger. We found that clock genes and hunger signals profoundly control the taste-evoked warm preferences. Thus, our data suggest that the taste-evoked response is one of the critical layers of regulatory mechanisms representing internal energy homeostasis and metabolism.

Introduction

Animals are constantly sensing environmental stimuli and changing their behavior or physiology based on their internal state ^1–7. Hungry animals are desperate for food. Immediately after seeing, smelling, or chewing food, even without absorbing nutrients, a burst of physiological changes is suddenly initiated in the body. These responses are known in mammals as the cephalic phase response (CPR). For example, a flood of saliva and gastrointestinal secretions prepares hungry animals to digest food ^8–12. Starvation results in lower body temperatures, and chewing food triggers a rapid increase in heat production, demonstrating CPR in thermogenesis ^13–15. Hungry animals are strongly attracted to food. However, the underlying mechanisms of how the sensation of food without nutrients triggers the behavioral response remain unclear.

To address this question, we used a relatively simple and versatile model organism, Drosophila melanogaster. Flies exhibit robust temperature preference behavior ^16,17. Due to the low mass of small ectotherms, their body temperatures are close to the ambient temperature ^18,19. Hunger stress forces flies to change their behavior and physiological response ^20,21. The hungry flies prefer a lower temperature ²², indicating lower body temperatures and lower metabolic rates ^22–24. Notably, this phenomenon of hunger-driven lower body temperature is similar to mammals, as the body temperature of starved animals is lower than that of fed animals ^5–7. Furthermore, flies exhibit robust feeding behavior ^25,26, and molecular and neural mechanisms of taste are well documented ^2,27–32. Therefore, we asked whether the taste cue triggers a robust behavioral recovery of temperature preference in starving flies.

Here we show in hungry flies that taste without nutrients induces a switch from a low to a high temperature preference. While taste leads to a warmer temperature preference, nutrient intake causes the flies to prefer an even warmer temperature. This nutrient-induced warm preference results in a complete recovery from starvation. Thus, taste-evoked warm preference is different from nutrient-induced warm preference and potentially similar physiology as CPR. Therefore, when animals emerge from starvation, they use a two-step approach to recovery: taste-evoked and nutrient-induced warm preference. While a rapid component is elicited by food taste alone, a slower component requires nutrient intake.

Animals are motivated to eat based on their internal state, such as time of day or degree of hunger. The circadian clock drives daily feeding rhythms ^33–35 and anticipates meal timing. Daily feeding timing influences energy homeostasis and metabolism ^36,37. Hunger and satiety dramatically affect animal behavior and physiology ^1–7 and control feeding. We found that clock genes and hunger signals are strongly required for taste-evoked warm preference. The data suggest that taste-evoked response is an indispensable physiological response that represents internal state. Taken together, our data shed new light on the role of the taste-evoked response and highlight a crucial aspect of our understanding of feeding state and energy homeostasis.

Results

Food detection triggers a warm preference

Flies exhibit robust temperature preference behavior ^16,17. To examine Drosophila temperature preference behavior, flies are released into a chamber with a temperature gradient of 16-34°C ³⁸ and subsequently accumulate at their preferred temperature (Tp) within 30 min. The white¹¹¹⁸ (w¹¹¹⁸) flies were fed fly food containing carbohydrate, protein and fat sources (Fig. 1A) and preferred 25.2±0.2 ^OC (Fig. 1B: fed, white bar). When w¹¹¹⁸ flies were starved overnight with water only, they preferred 21.7±0.3 ^OC (Fig. 1A, 1B: overnight starvation (STV), gray bar). Thus, starvation leads to a lower Tp. As we have previously reported, starvation strongly influences temperature preference ²².

Hungry flies switch from cold to warm preference upon food detection.
**(A)** A schematic diagram of the experimental conditions. Flies were reared on fly food. Emerging flies were kept on fly food for one or two days (orange) and then starved with water-absorbing paper for one or two nights (gray). Starved flies were refed with either fly food (orange), 2 mL sucralose (blue), or glucose solution (green) absorbed paper and then examined for temperature preference (Tp) behavioral assays. Details are provided in the experimental procedures.
**(B-D)** Comparison of Tp of *white*¹¹¹⁸ (*w¹¹¹⁸*) control flies between fed (white bar), starved (STV; gray bar), and refed (orange, blue, or green bar) states. Starved flies were refed with fly food (orange bar) for 5, 10, 30, or 60 min (1 hr) (B), 2.8 mM sucralose solution (blue bar) for 10 min or 1 hr (C), or 2.8 mM (equivalent to 5%) glucose solution (green bar) for 5 min, 10 min, or 1 hr (D). Behavioral experiments were performed at the specific time points, Zeitgeber time (ZT) 4-7. ZT0 and ZT12 are light on and light off, respectively. Dots on each bar indicate individual Tp in assays. Numbers in italics indicate the number of trials. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for normality. One-way ANOVA was performed to compare Tp between each refeeding condition. Tukey’s post hoc test was used to compare differences between experimental and starved conditions (green stars). Data are presented as mean Tp with SEM. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001. NS indicates no significance.
**(E)** Comparison of Tp among the following conditions in *w¹¹¹⁸* (control) flies: fed (white bar), starved overnight (O/N) (water or STV; gray bar), refed with fly food (fly food; orange bar), sucralose (blue bars), or glucose (green bars). The same data are used in Fig. 1B-D. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for normality. One-way ANOVA was performed to compare Tp between each refeeding condition. Red (or green) stars indicate Tukey’s post hoc test comparing differences between experimental and fed (or starved) conditions, respectively. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001. NS indicates not significant.
**(F)** Feeding assay: The number of touches to water (gray), 2.8 mM (equivalent to 5%) glucose (green), or 2.8 mM sucralose in each solution (blue) was examined using *w¹¹¹⁸* flies starved for 1 day. A cumulative number of touches to water or sugar solution for 0-30 min was plotted. Two-way ANOVA was used for multiple comparisons. Blue and green stars show Fisher’s LSD post hoc test comparing sucralose (blue stars) or glucose (green stars) solution feeding to water drinking. All data shown are means with SEM. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001.

To examine how starved flies recover from lower Tp, they were offered fly food (Fig. 1A) and their Tp was tested. After 10 min, 30 min or 1 hr of fly food refeeding, starved flies preferred a temperature similar to that of fed flies (Fig. 1B: statistics shown as green stars, Table S1), suggesting a full recovery from starvation. On the other hand, refeeding after 5 min resulted in a warmer temperature than the starved flies. Nevertheless, Tp did not reach that of the fed flies (Fig. 1B). Therefore, 5 min fly food refeeding caused a partial recovery from the starved state (Fig. 1E, statistics shown as red stars, Table S1). Thus, our data suggest that food intake triggers a warm preference in starved flies.

Sucralose refeeding promotes a warm preference

Given that only 5 min refeeding caused hungry flies to prefer a warmer temperature (Fig. 1B), we hypothesized that food-sensing cues might be important for the warm preference. Sucralose is an artificial sweetener that activates sweet taste neurons in Drosophila ³⁹ and modulates taste behaviors such as the proboscis extension reflex ^40–43. Importantly, sucralose is a non-metabolizable sugar and has no calories. Therefore, to investigate how food-sensing cues are involved in warm preference, we examined how sucralose refeeding changes the temperature preference of starved flies. After starved flies were refed sucralose for 10 min or 1 hr (Fig. 1A), they preferred a warmer temperature; however, Tp was halfway between Tps of fed and starved flies (Fig. 1C: blue, Table S1). Thus, sucralose ingestion induces a warm preference but shows a partial recovery of Tp from the starved state.

While refeeding the flies with food resulted in a full recovery of Tp from the starved state, refeeding them with sucralose resulted in only a partial recovery of Tp. Therefore, starved flies may use both taste cues and nutrients to fully recover Tp from the starved state. To evaluate this possibility, we used glucose, which contains both sweetness (gustatory cues) and nutrients (i.e., metabolizable sugar) (Fig. 1A), and tested glucose refeeding for 5 min, 10 min, and 1 hr. We found that 10 min or 1 hr glucose refeeding resulted in full recovery of Tp from the starved state (Fig. 1D and E: statistics shown in red NS, Table S1) and was significantly different from starved flies (Fig. 1D and E: statistics shown in green stars, Table S1). Thus, our data showed that sucralose refeeding induced partial recovery and glucose refeeding induced full recovery from the starved state.

However, it is still possible that the starved flies consumed glucose more or faster than sucralose during the first 10 min, which could result in a different warming preference. To rule out this possibility, we examined how often starved flies touched glucose, sucralose, or water during the 30 min using the Fly Liquid-food Interaction Counter (FLIC) system ⁴⁴. The FLIC system assays allow us to monitor how much interaction between the fly and liquid food reflects feeding/drinking episodes. We found that starved flies touched glucose and sucralose food at similar frequencies and more frequently than water during the 30 min test period (Fig. 1F, Table S1). The data suggest that flies are likely to consume glucose and sucralose at similar rates and amounts. Therefore, we concluded that the differential effect of sucralose and glucose refeeding on temperature preference was not due to differences in feeding rate or amount. Instead, the gustatory cues likely induce partial Tp recovery, and the gustatory cue plus nutrients induce full Tp recovery.

Activation of sweet taste neurons leads to warm preference

We first focused on how taste elicits a warm preference. Sweet gustatory receptors (Grs) detect sweet taste. We used sweet Gr mutants and asked whether sweet Grs are involved in taste-evoked warm preference. Two different sweet Gr mutant strains, Gr5a^-/-; Gr64a^-/- and Gr5a^-/-;;Gr61a^-/-, Gr64a-f^-/-, have reduced sugar sensitivity compared to the control ^41,42,45,46. We found that sweet Gr mutant flies exhibited a normal starvation response in which the Tp of starved flies was lower than that of fed flies (Fig. 2A and B, white and gray bars, Table S1). However, starved sweet Gr mutant flies did not increase Tp after 10 min sucralose refeeding (Fig. 2A and B, blue bars, Table S1). These data suggest that sweet Grs are involved in taste-evoked warm preference.

Gustatory neurons are essential for taste-evoked warm preference.
**(A-E)** Comparison of Tp of flies between fed (white bar), starved (STV; gray bar), and refed (blue bar) states. Starved flies were refed with sucralose (blue bars) for 10 min. (F) Schematic of optogenetic activation assay.
**(G-J)** Comparison of Tp of flies between fed (white bar), starved (STV; gray bar), and starved with all-trans-retinal (ATR; yellow bars), which is the chromophore required for CsChrimson activation. Gustatory neurons in starved flies were excited by red light pulses (flashing on and off at 10 Hz) for 10 min. Behavioral experiments were conducted at ZT4-7. Dots on each bar indicate individual Tp in assays. Numbers in italics indicate the number of trials. Shapiro-Wilk test was performed for normality test. One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis. Green stars indicate Tukey’s post hoc test compared between each experiment and the starved condition. Pooled data are shown in Fig. S3. All data shown are means with SEM. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001. NS indicates not significant.

Sweet Grs are expressed in the sweet Gr-expressing neurons (GRNs) located in the proboscis and forelegs ^46,47. To determine whether sweet GRNs are involved in taste-evoked warm preference, we silenced all sweet GRNs. We expressed the inward rectifying K⁺ channel Kir2.1 (uas-Kir) ⁴⁸ with Gr64f-Gal4, which is expressed in all sweet GRNs in the proboscis and forelegs ^41,46,47. Knockdown of all sweet GRNs showed a normal starvation response (Fig. 2C, white and gray bars). However, flies silencing all sweet GRNs failed to show a warm preference after 10 min sucralose refeeding (Fig. 2C, blue bar, Table S1). This phenotype was similar to the data obtained with the sweet Gr mutant strains (Fig. 2A and B). On the other hand, control flies (Gr64f-Gal4/+ and uas-Kir/+) showed a normal starvation response and a taste-evoked warm preference (Fig. 2D and E, gray and blue bars, respectively, Table S1). Thus, our data indicate that sweet GRNs are required for taste-evoked warm preference.

To further investigate whether activation of sweet GRNs induces a warm preference, we used the optogenetic approach, a red light sensitive channelrhodopsin, CsChrimson ^49,50. Starved flies were given water containing 0.8 mM all-trans-retinal (ATR), the chromophore required for CsChrimson activation. These flies were not fed sucralose; instead, gustatory neurons in starved flies were excited by red light pulses (flashing on and off at 10 Hz) for 10 min (Fig. 2F). In this case, although the flies were not refed, the gustatory neurons were artificially excited by CsChrimson activation so that we could evaluate the effect of excitation of sweet GRNs on taste-evoked warm preference.

CsChrimson was expressed in sweet GRNs in the proboscis and legs (all sweet GRNs) using Gr64f-Gal4. These flies showed a normal starvation response (Fig. 2G-J, white and gray bars, Table S1). Excitation of all sweet GRNs by red light pulses elicited a warm preference, and Tp was intermediate between fed and starved flies, suggesting partial recovery (Fig. 2G, yellow bar, Table S1). However, neither excitation of Gr5a-(Fig. 2H) nor Gr64a-expressing neurons (Fig. 2I) induced a warm preference (yellow bars, Table S1). While Gr64a-Gal4 is expressed only in legs, Gr5a-Gal4 is expressed in proboscis and legs, but does not cover all sweet GRNs like Gr64f-Gal4 ^46,47. Notably, control flies (UAS-CsChrimson/+) did not show a warm preference to red light pulses with ATR application (Fig. 2J). Taken together, our data suggest that excitation of all sweet GRNs results in a warm preference.

The temperature-sensing neurons are involved in taste-evoked warm preference

The warm-sensing neurons, anterior cells (ACs) and the cold-sensing R11F02-Gal4-expressing neurons control temperature preference behavior ^38,51,52. Small ectotherms such as Drosophila set their Tp to avoid noxious temperatures using temperature information from cold- and warm-sensing neurons ^16,17,38. We have previously shown that starved flies choose a lower Tp, the so-called hunger-driven lower Tp ²². ACs control hunger-driven lower Tp but cold-sensing R11F02-Gal4-expressing neurons do not ²². ACs express transient receptor potential A1 (TrpA1), which responds to a warm temperature >25 ^OC ^38,53. The set point of ACs in fed flies, which is ∼25 ^OC, is lowered in starved flies. Therefore, the lower set point of ACs corresponds to the lower Tp in starved flies.

First, we asked whether ACs are involved in taste-evoked warm preference. Because the ACs are important for the hunger-driven lower Tp ²², the AC-silenced flies did not show a significant difference in Tp between fed and starved conditions for only one overnight starvation ²². Therefore, we first extended the starvation time to two nights so that the AC-silenced flies showed a significant difference in Tp between fed and starved conditions (Fig. 3A, white and gray bars, Table S1). Importantly, more prolonged starvation does not affect the ability of w¹¹¹⁸ flies to recover (Fig. S1).

Both warm- and cold-temperature-sensing neurons are involved with taste-evoked warm preference.
**(A-E)** Comparison of Tp of flies between fed (white bar), starved (STV; gray bar), and refed (blue bar) conditions. Starved flies were refed with sucralose (blue bars) for 10 min. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for normality. One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Green stars indicate Tukey’s post hoc test or Dunn’s test compared between each experiment and the starved condition. Pooled data are shown in Fig. S3. **(F and G)** Comparison of Tp between starved (STV; gray bar) and all-trans-retinal (ATR; yellow bars) starved flies. Warm neurons (F) or cold neurons (G) in starved flies expressed CsChrimson, which was excited by red light pulses for 10 min. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for normality. Student’s t-test or Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for statistical analysis. (G) *tubGal80ts; R11F02-Gal4>uas-CsChrimson* flies were reared at 18°C, and emerged adults were collected and stored at 29°C. See Materials and Methods for details. These behavioral experiments were conducted on ZT4-7. All data shown are means with SEM. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001. NS indicates no significance. The same data from *UAS-Kir/+* in Fig. 2E are used in Fig. 3E.

To examine whether ACs regulate taste-evoked warm preference, we refed sucralose to AC-silenced flies for 10 min. We found that the Tp of the refed flies was still similar to that of the starved flies (Figure 3A, blue bar, Table S1), indicating that sucralose refeeding could not restore Tp and that ACs are involved in taste-evoked warm preference. Significantly, even when the AC-silenced flies were starved for two nights, they were able to recover Tp to the normal food for 10 min and to glucose for 1 hr (Fig. S3D), suggesting that the starved AC-silenced flies were still capable of recovery.

Other temperature-sensing neurons involved in temperature preference behavior are cold-sensing R11F02-Gal4-expressing neurons ^51,52. To determine whether R11F02-Gal4-expressing neurons are involved in taste-evoked warm preference, we silenced R11F02-Gal4-expressing neurons using uas-Kir. We found that the flies showed a significant difference in Tp between fed and starved conditions, but the flies did not show a warm preference upon sucralose refeeding (Fig. 3B, gray and blue bars, Table S1). As controls, TrpA1^SH-Gal4/+, R11F02-Gal4/+ and uas-Kir/+ flies showed normal starvation response and taste-evoked warm preference (Fig. 3C-E).

To further ensure the results, we used optogenetics to artificially excite warm and cold neurons with TrpA1^SH-Gal4 and R11F02-Gal4, respectively, by red light pulses for 10 min. We compared the Tp of starved flies with and without ATR under red light. Tp of starved flies with ATR was significantly increased (Fig. 3F and G, yellow bars, Table S1) compared to those without ATR (Fig. 3F and G, gray bars, Table S1). Therefore, these data indicate that ACs and R11F02-Gal4-expressing neurons are required for taste-evoked warm preference.

Internal state influences taste-evoked warm preference in hungry flies

Internal state strongly influences feeding motivation. However, how internal state influences starved animals to exhibit a food response remains unclear. Hunger represents the food-deficient state in the body, which induces the release of hunger signals such as neuropeptide Y (NPY). NPY promotes foraging and feeding behavior in mammals and flies ⁵⁴. While intracerebroventricular injection of NPY induces cephalic phase response (CPR) ⁵⁵, injection of NPY antagonists suppresses CPR in dogs, suggesting that NPY is a regulator of CPR in mammals ⁵⁶. Therefore, we first focused on neuropeptide F (NPF) and small neuropeptide F (sNPF), which are the Drosophila homologue and orthologue of mammalian NPY, respectively ⁵⁴, and asked whether they are involved in taste-evoked warm preference. In NPF mutant (NPF^-/-) or sNPF hypomorph (sNPF hypo) mutant, we found that the Tp of fed and starved flies were significantly different, showing a normal starved response (Fig. 4A and B: white vs. gray bars, Table S1). However, they failed to show a taste-evoked warm preference after 10 min sucralose refeeding (Fig. 4A and B: blue bars, Table S1). Thus, NPF and sNPF are required for taste-evoked warm preference after sucralose feeding.

Hunger signals are involved in taste-evoked warm preference.
Comparison of Tp of flies between fed (white bar), starved (STV; gray bar), and refed states (orange, blue, green, or dark green). Starved flies were refed with fly food (orange bar), sucralose (blue bar), or glucose (green bar) for 10 min. These behavioral experiments were conducted on ZT4-7. Dots on each bar indicate individual Tp in assays. Numbers in italics indicate the number of trials. Shapiro-Wilk test was performed for normality test. One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis. Green stars indicate Tukey’s post hoc test compared between each experiment and the starved condition. Pooled data are shown in Fig. S3. All data shown are means with SEM. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001. NS indicates not significant.

Next, we asked whether NPF and sNPF are involved in the nutrient-induced warm preference during glucose refeeding. We found that starved NPF^-/- mutants significantly increased Tp after 1 hr glucose refeeding (Fig. 4A, green and dark green bars, Table S1). We also found that starved sNPF hypo mutants significantly increased Tp after 10 min and 1 hr of glucose refeeding (Fig. 4B, green and dark green bars, Table S1). In addition, both NPF^-/- and sNPF hypo mutants increased Tp after 10 min fly food refeeding (Fig. 4A and B, orange bars, Table S1). These data suggest that NPF and sNPF are unlikely to be critical for nutrient-induced warm preference.

Factors involving hunger regulate taste-evoked warm preference

Based on the above results, we hypothesized that hunger signals might be involved in taste-evoked warm preference. To test this hypothesis, we focused on several factors involved in the hunger state. The major hunger signals ²⁰, diuretic hormone 44 (DH44), and adipokinetic hormone (AKH) are the mammalian corticotropin-releasing hormone homologue ⁵⁷ and the functional glucagon homologue respectively ^58,59. We found that DH44- or AKH-neuron-silenced flies failed to show a taste-evoked warm preference after sucralose refeeding. However, they were able to increase Tp after 10 min glucose or fly food refeeding (Fig. 4D and F, green and orange bars, Table S1), suggesting a normal nutrient-induced warm preference. The control flies (Dh44-Gal4/+, Akh-Gal4/+, and UAS-Kir/+) showed normal warm preference to sucralose (Fig. 4C, E and J, blue bars, Table S1), glucose (Fig. 4C, E and J, green bars, Table S1), and normal fly food refeeding (Fig. 4C, E and J, orange bars, Table S1). The data suggest that DH44 or AKH neurons are required for taste-evoked warm preference, but not for nutrient-induced warm preference.

Insulin-like peptide 6 (Ilp6) is a homologue of mammalian insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), and ilp6 mRNA expression increases in starved flies ^60–62. Because Ilp6 is important for the hunger-driven lower Tp ²², the ilp6 mutants did not show a significant difference in Tp between fed and starved conditions for only one overnight starvation ²². Therefore, we first extended the starvation time to three nights. We found that ilp6 loss-of-function (ilp6 LOF) mutant failed to show a taste-evoked warm preference after sucralose refeeding (Fig. 4G, blue bars, Table S1), but showed a nutrient-induced warm preference after glucose refeeding (Fig. 4G, green bars, Table S1). These data suggest that Ilp6 is required for taste-evoked warm preference but not for nutrient-induced warm preference after glucose or fly food refeeding.

Unpaired3 (Upd3) is a Drosophila cytokine that is upregulated under nutritional stress ⁶³. We found that upd3 mutants failed to show a taste-evoked warm preference after sucralose refeeding (Fig. 4H, blue bars, Table S1), but showed a nutrient-induced warm preference after glucose refeeding (Fig. 4G and H, green bars, Table S1). These data suggest that Upd3 is required for taste-evoked warm preference, but not for nutrient-induced warm preference after glucose refeeding. Notably, upd3 mutants failed to show nutrient-induced warm preference upon normal food feeding (Fig. 4H, orange bars, Table S1).

We also examined the role of the satiety factor Unpaired2 (Upd2), a functional leptin homologue in flies, in taste-evoked warm preference ⁶⁴. upd2 mutants failed to show a warm preference after refeeding of sucralose, glucose or fly food (Fig. 4I, blue, green and orange bars, Table S1). Thus, our data suggest that factors involved in the hunger state are required for taste-evoked warm preference.

Flies show a taste-evoked warm preference at all times of the day

Animals anticipate feeding schedules at a time of day that is tightly controlled by the circadian clock ³⁷. Flies show a rhythmic feeding pattern: one peak in the morning ⁴⁴ or two peaks in the morning and evening ⁶⁵. Because food cues induce a warm preference, we wondered whether feeding rhythm and taste-evoked warm preference are coordinated. If so, they should show a parallel phenotype.

Since flies exhibit one of the circadian outputs, the temperature preference rhythm (TPR) ⁶⁶, Tp gradually increases during the day and peaks in the evening. First, we tested starvation responses at Zeitgeber time (ZT) 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 in light and dark (LD) conditions. We found that both w¹¹¹⁸ and yellow¹ white¹ (y¹w¹) flies exhibited higher Tp in the fed state and lower Tp in the starved state at all times during the day (Fig. 5A and B: black vs. gray line; Table S1). Next, we refed sucralose to starved flies at all time points tested and examined taste-evoked warm preference. While starved y¹w¹ flies showed a taste-evoked warm preference at all time points (Fig. 5B1, gray vs. blue line, Table S1), starved w¹¹¹⁸ flies showed a significant taste-evoked warm preference at ZT 4-6 and 10-12 (Fig. 5A1, gray vs. blue line, Table S1).

Clock genes are involved in taste-evoked warm preference.
**(A-D)** Comparison of Tp of flies between fed (white circles), starved (STV; gray triangles), and refed (blue, green, or dark green squares) states. Flies were starved for 24 hrs. Starved flies were refed with sucralose (blue squares, A1-D1) or glucose for 10 min (green squares, A2-D2) or 1 hr (dark green squares, A3). After the 10 min or 1 hr refeeding, the temperature preference behavior assays were performed immediately at ZT1-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 in LD. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for normality. One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Stars indicate Tukey’s post hoc test or Dunn’s test compared between each experiment and starved condition at the same time point. All data shown are means with SEM. *p<0.05. **p<0.01. ***p<0.001. ****p < 0.0001.
**(E)** Comparison of Tp during daytime in each feeding state. One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis between ZT1-3 and ZT7-9 or ZT10-12. R and AR indicate rhythmic and arrhythmic, respectively, during the daytime.

Because starved w¹¹¹⁸ flies showed an advanced phase shift of TPR with a peak at ZT 7-9 (Fig. 5A, gray), it is likely that the highest Tp simply masks the taste-evoked warm preference at ZT 7-9. We also focused on nutrient- (carbohydrate-) induced warm preference. Starved w¹¹¹⁸ and y¹w¹ flies successfully increased Tp after 10 min glucose refeeding (Fig. 5A2 and B2, green line, Table S1). Glucose refeeding for 1 hr resulted in Tp similar to that of fed w¹¹¹⁸ flies (Fig. 5A3, green line). Because the feeding rhythm peaks in the morning or morning/evening ^44,65, our data suggest that the feeding rhythm and taste-evoked warm preference do not occur in parallel.

Circadian clock genes are required for taste-evoked warm preference, but not nutrient-induced warm preference

We asked whether the circadian clock is involved in taste-evoked warm preference. We used clock gene null mutants, period⁰¹ (per⁰¹) and timeless⁰¹ (tim⁰¹). Although they showed significant starvation responses (Fig. 5C and D, black and gray lines, Table S1), neither starved per⁰¹ nor tim⁰¹ mutants could exhibit taste-evoked warm preference upon sucralose refeeding (Fig. 5C1 and D1, blue lines, Table S1). Nevertheless, they fully recovered upon glucose refeeding in LD at any time of day (Fig. 5C2 and D2, green lines, Table S1). Therefore, our data suggest that clock genes are required for taste-evoked warm preference, but not for nutrient-induced warm preference.

However, starved per⁰¹ and tim⁰¹ mutants may eat sucralose less frequently than glucose, which could result in a failure to show a taste-evoked warm preference. Therefore, we examined how often starved per⁰¹ and tim⁰¹ mutants touched glucose, sucralose, or water during the 30 min using FLIC assays ⁴⁴ (Fig. S2A-C). Interestingly, starved per⁰¹ and tim⁰¹ mutants touched water significantly more often than glucose or sucralose (Fig. S2B and C, Table S1). Although starved tim⁰¹ flies touched glucose slightly more than sucralose for only 10 min, this phenotype is not consistent with per⁰¹ and w¹¹¹⁸ flies. Thus, we conclude that in per⁰¹ and w¹¹¹⁸ flies, the differential response between taste-evoked and nutrient-induced warm preferences is not due to feeding rate or amount.

The sweet GRNs and temperature-sensing neurons contribute both taste-evoked and nutrient (carbohydrate)-induced warm preference

Our data suggest that taste-evoked and nutrient- (carbohydrate-) induced warm preferences are controlled separately. We examined how these differences are coordinated. We show that genes involved in internal state tend to control taste-evoked warm preferences. Since gustatory or temperature-sensitive neurons are required for taste-evoked warm preference (Figs. 2 and 3), we asked whether they contribute to nutrient-induced warm preference.

To this end, we used all-sweet-GRNs-silenced flies (Gr64f-Gal4>uas-Kir), two Grs mutant strains (Gr5a^-/-; Gr64a^-/- and Gr5a^-/-;;Gr61a^-/-, Gr64a-f^-/-), and the warm- or cold-neuron-silenced flies (TrpA1^SH-Gal4 or R11F02-Gal4>uas-Kir). We found that all these starved flies did not increase Tp after 10 min glucose intake (Fig. S3A-E, green bars, Table S1), but increased Tp after 10 min refeeding with fly food containing carbohydrate, fat, and protein (Fig. S3A-E, orange bars, Table S1). As an exception, AC-silenced flies increased Tp after 1 hr glucose intake (Fig. S3D, green bars, Table S1). All control flies showed normal responses to both 10 min glucose refeeding and fly food intake (Fig. S3F-I, green bars, Table S1). The data suggest that gustatory neurons and temperature-sensing neurons are required for warm preference in carbohydrate refeeding, but not in other foods such as fat or protein (see Discussion). Because flies have sensory neurons that detect fatty acids ^67–69 or amino acids ^70–73, these neurons may drive the response to fly food intake. This is likely why the sweet- or temperature-insensitive flies can still recover after eating fly food (Fig S3A-E, orange bars).

Discussion

When animals are hungry, sensory detection of food (sight, smell, or chewing) initiates digestion even before the food enters the stomach. The food-evoked responses are also observed in thermogenesis, heart rate, and respiratory rate in mammals ^13,14,74. These responses are referred to as the cephalic phase response (CPR) and contribute to the physiological regulation of digestion, nutrient homeostasis, and daily energy homeostasis ¹⁰. While starved flies show a cold preference, we show here that the food cue, such as the excitation of gustatory neurons, triggers a warm preference, and the nutritional value triggers an even higher warm preference. Thus, when flies exit the starvation state, they use a two-step approach to recovery, taste-evoked and nutrient-induced warm preferences. The taste-evoked warm preference in Drosophila may be a physiological response potentially equivalent to CPR in mammals. Furthermore, we found that internal needs, controlled by hunger signals and circadian clock genes, influence taste-evoked warm preference. Thus, we propose that the taste-evoked response plays an important role in recovery and represents another layer of regulation of energy homeostasis.

Tp is determined by the taste cue

Starved flies increase Tp in response to a nutrient-free taste cue (Fig. 1C and E), resulting in a taste-evoked warm preference. We showed that silencing of ACs or cold neurons caused a loss of taste-evoked warm preference (Figs. 3 and S3), and that excitation of ACs or cold neurons induced a taste-evoked warm preference (Fig. 3). The data suggest that both warm and cold neurons are important for taste-evoked warm preference: while ACs are required for the hunger-driven lower Tp ²², both ACs and cold neurons are likely to be important for this taste-evoked warm preference.

The hunger-driven lower Tp is a slower response because starvation gradually lowers their Tp, ²². In contrast, the taste-evoked warm preference is a rapid response. Once ACs and cold neurons are directly or indirectly activated, starved flies quickly move to a warmer area. This is interesting because even when ACs and cold neurons are activated by warm and cold, respectively, the activation of these neurons causes a warm preference. Given that the sensory detection of food (sight, smell, or chewing food) triggers CPR, the activation of these sensory neurons may induce CPR. Tp in sucralose-fed hungry flies is between that of fed and starved flies (Figs. 2, 3, and S3), making it difficult to detect the smaller temperature differences using the calcium imaging experiments. Therefore, we speculate that both ACs and cold neurons may facilitate rapid recovery from starvation so that flies can quickly return to their preferred temperature - body temperature - to a normal state.

Internal state influences taste-evoked warm preference

We show that mutants of genes involved in hunger and the circadian clock fail to show taste-evoked warm preference, suggesting that hunger and clock genes are important for taste-evoked warm preference. At a certain time of day, animals are hungry for food ^44,65. Therefore, the "hungry" state acts as a gatekeeper, opening the gate of the circuits when hungry flies detect the food information that leads to taste-evoked warm preference (Fig. S4, blue arrow). While most hunger signals are important only for taste-evoked warm preference, some hunger signals are also required for both taste-evoked and nutrient-induced warm preferences (Fig. 4). The data suggest that internal state is more likely to be associated with taste-evoked warm preference than nutrient-induced warm preference. It is noteworthy that the sensory signals contribute to both taste-evoked warm preference and nutrient-induced warm preferences (Figs. S1, S3 and S4, blue and green arrows). Therefore, taste-evoked warm preference and nutrient-induced warm preference are differentiated at the level of the internal state, but not at the sensory level. This idea is analogous to appetitive memory formation. Sweet taste and nutrients regulate the different layers of the memory formation process. Recent evidence suggests that the rewarding process can be subdivided; the sweet taste is for short-term memory and the nutrient is for long-term memory ^75–77. The data suggest that the taste-evoked response functions differently from the nutrient-induced response. Therefore, taste sensation is not just the precursor to nutrient sensing/absorption, but plays an essential role in the rapid initiation of a taste-evoked behavior that would help the animal survive.

How do hunger signals or clock genes contribute to taste-evoked warm preference?

The hunger signaling hormones/peptides studied in this project are important for taste modulation. For example, mammalian NPY and its Drosophila homolog NPF modulate the output of taste signals ^43,78,79. The AKH receptor is expressed in a subset of gustatory neurons that may modulate taste information for carbohydrate metabolism ⁸⁰. Therefore, the hunger signals are likely to modulate the downstream of the sensory neurons, which may result in a taste-evoked warm preference.

Circadian clock genes control and coordinate the expression of many clock-controlled genes in the body ^81–84. Therefore, we expect that the absence of clock genes will disrupt the molecular and neural networks of cellular homeostasis, including metabolism, that are essential for animal life. For example, taste neurons express clock genes, and impaired clock function in taste neurons disrupts daily rhythms in feeding behavior ⁸⁵. Temperature-sensing neurons transmit hot or cold temperature information to central clock neurons ^86–90. Therefore, the disrupted central clock in clock mutants may respond imprecisely to temperature signals. There are many possible reasons why the lack of clock gene expression in the brain is likely to cause abnormal taste-evoked warm preference.

In addition, hunger signals may contribute to the regulation of circadian output. DH44 is located in the dorsomedial region of the fly brain, the pars intercerebralis (PI), and DH44-expressing neurons play a role in the output pathway of the central clock ^91,92. Insulin-producing cells (IPCs) are also located in addition to DH44-expressing neurons ^93–96. IPCs receive a variety of information, including circadian ^92,97 and metabolic signals ^60–62,64. and then transduce the signals downstream to release Ilps. Both Upd2 and Ilp6, which are expressed in the fat body respond to metabolic states and remotely regulate Ilp expression ^60–62,64. Insect fat body is analogous to the fat tissues and liver in the vertebrates ^98,99. Therefore, each hunger signal may have its specific function for taste-evoked warm preference. Further studies are needed to describe the entire process.

Taste-evoked warm preference may be CPR in flies

The introduction of food into the body disrupts the internal milieu, so CPR is a necessary process that helps animals prepare for digestion. Specifically, in mammals, taste leads to an immediate increase in body temperature and metabolic rate. Starvation results in lower body temperatures, and chewing food, even before it enters the stomach, triggers a rapid increase in heat production, demonstrating CPR in thermogenesis ^13,14.

Starved flies have a lower Tp ²². Because Drosophila is a small ectotherm, the lower Tp indicates a lower body temperature ^19,20. Even when the flies do not receive food, the sweet taste and the excitation of sweet neurons induce starved flies to show a warm preference, which eventually leads to a warmer body temperature. Thus, the taste-evoked warm preference in Drosophila may be a physiological response equivalent to one of the CPRs observed in mammals. Thus, in both flies and mammals, starvation leads to lower body temperatures, and food cues quickly initiate a rise in body temperature before food enters their body.

CPR is essential because both starved mammals and starved flies must rapidly regulate their body temperature to survive

As soon as starving flies taste food, the sensory signals trigger CPR. They can move to a warmer place to prepare to raise their body temperature (Fig. S4, blue arrows). CPR may allow flies to choose a more hospitable place to restore their physiological state and allow for higher metabolism, and eventually they move to the next step, such as foraging and actively searching for a mate before competitors arrive. As such, CPR may be a strategy for the fly’s survival. Similarly, starvation or malnutrition in mammals causes lower body temperatures ^6,7,100, and biting food triggers heat production, which is CPR ^13–15. Thus, while starvation causes lower body temperatures in both flies and mammals, food cues initiate CPR in body temperature elevation and nutrient intake, resulting in full recovery from the starved state. Our data suggest that Drosophila CPR may be a physiological response equivalent to CPR observed in other animals. Thus, Drosophila may shed new light on the regulation of CPR and provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between CPR and metabolism.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Drs. Anupama Dahanukar, Hubert Amrein, Greg Suh, and Paul A. Garrity and the Bloomington Drosophila Fly Stock Center for the fly lines. We thank members of the Hamada laboratory for critical comments and advice on the manuscript, Dr. Richard A. Lang and members of his laboratory for comments and kindly sharing reagents, Dr. Satoshi Namekawa for kindly sharing reagents, and Matthew Batie and Nathan T. Petts for design and construction of the behavioral assays and red-light illumination apparatus. This research was supported by a Trustee Grant and RIP funding from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, JST (Japan Science and Technology)/Precursory Research for Embryonic Science and Technology (PRESTO), the March of Dimes, and NIH R01 grant GM107582 and NIH R21 grant NS112890 to F.N.H. S.H.S. is a Latin American Fellow in the Biomedical Sciences supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Research in the laboratory of J.C.C. is supported by NIH R01 grant DK124068.

Contributions

F.N.H and Y.U designed the experiments. Y.U, E.N., T.N. and J.S. performed the temperature preference behavioral assays and data analysis. Y.U., S.H.S., S.S.U. and J.C. performed the feeding experiments and the data analysis. F.N.H and Y.U wrote the manuscript.

Declaration of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests□

The starvation period is unlikely to affect the ability to recover (Related to Fig. 3)
Comparison of Tp of *w¹¹¹⁸* control flies between fed (white bar), starved (STV; gray bar), and refed (STV; gray bar) and refed (blue or green bar). Flies were starved for overnight (STV1ON; gray bar) or 1.5 ON (STV1.5ON; dark gray bar), i.e. starved for 18-21 hrs. starved for 18-21 hrs or 26-29 hrs. Starved flies were refed with sucralose for 10 min (blue bar) or glucose for 10 min (green bar). These behavioral experiments were performed on ZT4-7. Dots on each bar indicate individual Tp in the assays. Numbers in italics indicate the number of trials. Per Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for normality. One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Green stars indicate Tukey’s post hoc test or Dunn’s test was used to compare between each experiment and starved condition. and starved condition. All data shown are means with sem. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001. NS indicates no significance. The same data from STV1ON, STV1ON+refed sucralose for 10 min and STV1ON+refed sucralose for 10 min in Fig. 1C-E are used in Fig. S1.

Number of touches to water, sucralose and glucose using yw, *per⁰¹* and *tim⁰¹* flies. (Related to Figures 1, 5, and 6)
Feeding assay: The number of touches to water (gray), 2.8 mM (equivalent to 5%) glucose (green), or 2.8 mM sucralose solution (blue) was examined using yw, *per⁰¹*, or *tim⁰¹* flies starved for 1 day. Cumulative number of touches for 0-30 min was plotted. Two-way ANOVA was used for multiple comparisons. Blue and green stars show Fisher’s LSD post hoc test comparing sucralose (blue stars) or glucose (green stars) solution feeding to water drinking. Black stars show the statistical difference between sucralose and glucose refeeding. All data shown are means with SEM. *p < 0.05. *F*p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001.

Taste- or temperature-sensing neurons are not important for nutrient- (carbohydrate-) induced warm preference (Related to Figures 2 and 3).
Comparison of Tp of flies between fed (white bar), starved (STV; gray bar), and refed (orange, blue, green, or dark green bar) conditions. Starved flies were refed with fly food for 10 min (fly food; orange bar), sucralose for 10 min (blue bar), or glucose for 10 min (green bar) or 1 hr (dark green bar). These behavioral experiments were conducted on ZT4-7. The dots on each bar indicate individual Tp in the assays. Numbers in italics indicate the number of experiments. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for normality. One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Green stars indicate Tukey’s post hoc test or Dunn’s test compared between each experiment and the starved condition. All data shown are means with sem. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. ****p < 0.0001. NS indicates no significance. The same data from *UAS-Kir/+* in Fig. 2E are used in Fig. S3I.

MODEL
**A schematic diagram of Tp recovery by taste-evoked warm preference (blue arrows) and nutrient-induced warm preference (green arrows).**

Materials and Methods

All flies were reared under 12 hr-light/12 hr-dark (LD) cycles at 25°C and 60-70% humidity in an incubator (DRoS33SD, Powers Scientific Inc.) with an electric timer (light on: 8am; light off: 8pm). The light intensity is 1000-1400 lux. All flies were reared on custom fly food recipe, with the following composition per 1 L of food: 6.0 g sucrose, 7.3 g agar, 44.6 g cornmeal, 22.3 g yeast and 16.3 mL molasses as described previously ⁵². white¹¹¹⁸ (w¹¹¹⁸) and yellow¹ white¹ (y¹w¹) flies were used as control flies. EP5Δ; Gr64a¹ (Gr5a^-/-; Gr64a^-/-) was kindly provided by Dr. Anupama Dahanukar ⁴¹. R1; Gr5a-LexA; +; ΔGr61a, ΔGr64a-f (Gr5a^-/-; Gr61a^-/-, Gr64a-f^-/-) were kindly provided by Dr. Hubert Amrein ^45,46. Dh44-Gal4 was kindly provided by Dr. Greg Suh ⁴². TrpA1^SH-gal4 was kindly provided by Dr. Paul A. Garrity ³⁸. Other fly lines were provided by Bloomington Drosophila stock center and Vienna Drosophila Stock Center.

Temperature preference behavioral assay

The temperature preference behavior assays were examined using a gradient of temperatures, ranging from 16-34°C and were performed for 30 min in an environmental room maintained at 25°C /60%–70% humidity as described previously ²². We prepared a total of 40-50 flies (male and female flies were mixed) for fed condition experiments and 90-100 flies for overnight(s) starved and refed condition experiments for one trial. Flies were never reused in subsequent trials. In starved and refed experiments, we prepared double the amount of flies required for one trial, as almost half of them died by starvation stress. Others climbed on the wall and ceiling (starved flies are usually hyperactive (Yang et al. 2015 PNAS)), even though we applied slippery coating chemicals (PTFE; Cat# 665800, Sigma or byFormica PTFE Plus, https://byformica.com/products/fluon-plus-ptfe-escape-prevention-coating) to the plexiglass covers.

The behavioral assays were performed for 30 min at Zeitgeber time (ZT) 4-7 (Light on and light off are defined as ZT0 and ZT12, respectively), and starvation was initiated at ZT9-10 (starved for 1, 2 or 3 O/N are 18-21 hrs, 42-45 hrs or 66-69 hrs, respectively). As for STV1.5 for Fig. S1, starvation was initiated at ZT1-2 (26-29 hrs). For the starvation assays, the collected flies were maintained with our fly food for at least one day for their maturation and subsequently moved into plastic vials with 3 mL of distilled water which is absorbed by a Kimwipe paper. For the refeeding experiments, starved flies were transferred into plastic vials with 2 mL of 2.8 mM sugar solution (Sucralose water/ Glucose water) for a certain time period. Sugar solution is absorbed by the half size of a Kimwipe.

After the 30-min behavioral assay, the number of flies whose bodies were completely located on the apparatus were counted. Flies whose bodies were partially or completely located on the walls of the apparatus cover were not included in the data analysis. The percentage of flies within each one-degree temperature interval on the apparatus was calculated by dividing the number of flies within each one-degree interval by the total number of flies on the apparatus. The location of each one-degree interval was determined by measuring the temperature at 6 different points on the bottom of the apparatus. Data points were plotted as the percentage of flies within a one-degree temperature interval. The weighted mean of Tp was calculated by totaling the product of the percentage of flies within a one-degree temperature interval and the corresponding temperature (e.g., fractional number of flies x 15.5°C + fractional number of flies x 16.5°C +……… fractional number of flies x 34.5°C). If the SEM of the averaged Tp was not < 0.3 after the five trials, we performed additional trials around 10 times until the SEM reached < 0.3.

Temperature preference rhythm (TPR) assay

For the TPR assays, we performed temperature preference behavior assays in different time windows during the day (zeitgeber time (ZT) or circadian time (CT) 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12) as described previously ^66,101. Because starvation duration directly affects flies’ Tp ²², starvation was initiated at each time window to adjust the starvation duration at each time point, which means flies were starved for 24 hrs or 48 hrs but not 1 or 2 O/N. Each behavioral assay was not examined during these time periods (ZT or CT0-1 and 11.5-13) because of large phenotype variation around light on and light off.

Optogenetic activation

For the optogenetic activation of the target neurons for behavioral assays, red-light-sensitive channelrodopsin, UAS-CsChrimson, was crossed with each Gal4 drivers. Flies were reared on fly food at 25°C and 60-70% humidity under LD cycles in an incubator (DRoS33SD, Powers Scientific Inc.) with an electric timer. After flies emerged, we collected adult flies and kept them with fly food for 1-2 days. Next day, flies were transferred into water with or without 0.8 mM all-trans retinal (ATR; #R2500, Sigma) diluted in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO; #472301, Sigma) for 2 O/N. To activate flies expressing UAS-CsChrimson crossed with Gal4 drivers, we employed 627 nm red-colored light-emitted diode (LED) equipped with pulse photoillumination system (10 Hz, 0.08 mWmm^-2). Flies were irradiated with pulsed red light for 10 min, which is equivalent to refeeding time period. This photoillumination system was used in an incubator (Sanyo Scientific, MIR-154), and followed by temperature preference behavioral assays.

Optogenetic assay for tubGal80^ts; R11F02-Gal4>uas-CsChrimson

Because R11F02-Gal4>uas-CsChrimson flies died during the pupal stage, Gal4/Gal80^ts system was used to restrict uas-CsChrimson expression to the adult stage for optogenetc assays against the cold-sensing neurons (R11F02-Gal4-expressing neurons). Gal80^ts is a temperature sensitive allele of Gal80, which binds Gal4 and inhibits CsChrimson gene expression at 18°C. However, Gal80 is degraded at 29°C; in turn, the Gal4 activates CsChrimson gene expression (Southall et al. 2008 CSH protocol). tubGal80^ts; R11F02-Gal4>uas-CsChrimson flies were reared with fly food at 18°C. Emerged adult flies were collected and kept with fly food at 29°C. Next day, flies were transferred to water condition (starved condition) with or without 0.8 mM ATR for 2 O/N. Starved flies with or without ATR application were exposed to pulsed red light for 10 min (equivalent to refeeding period) and then immediately loaded in the behavior apparatus for behavioral assays to measure their Tp.

Feeding assay

To measure single fly feeding, we used Drosophila Fly Liquid Interaction Counter (FLIC) system (Ro et al. 2013 Plos one; Sable systems International https://www.sablesys.com). Groups of 1-2-day-old male and female flies were starved for 24 hrs, which was started from between ZT4-5 (12-1pm). Individual flies were then loaded into FLIC monitors. Flies were acclimatized to the monitors for 30 min, with access to water provided in the food wells. To start the feeding assay, water was replaced with 2.8 mM Sucralose or 2.8 mM Glucose solution (equivalent to 5% Glucose conc.) and the number of licks (touches) were recorded for 30 min. Assays were performed at ZT4-7. To account for potential confounding effect of startle response when changing the food, wells where water was replaced with new water were used as a control. FLIC raw data was analyzed using the FLIC R code master (Pletcher Lab, available at https://github.com/PletcherLab/FLIC_R_Code). The numbers of licks were obtained and summed into 5-min windows bin, while the cumulative licks were obtained by the consecutive sum of the licks in these bins.

References

1.
1. Root C.M.
2. Ko K.I.
3. Jafari A.
4. Wang J.W
2011Presynaptic facilitation by neuropeptide signaling mediates odor-driven food searchCell 145:133–144https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.008
2.
1. Kain P.
2. Dahanukar A
2015Secondary taste neurons that convey sweet taste and starvation in the Drosophila brainNeuron 85:819–832https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.01.005
3.
1. Soria-Gomez E.
2. Bellocchio L.
3. Reguero L.
4. Lepousez G.
5. Martin C.
6. Bendahmane M.
7. Ruehle S.
8. Remmers F.
9. Desprez T.
10. Matias I.
11. et al.
2014The endocannabinoid system controls food intake via olfactory processesNat Neurosci 17:407–415https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3647
4.
1. Hanci D.
2. Altun H
2016Hunger state affects both olfactory abilities and gustatory sensitivityEur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:1637–1641https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3589-6
5.
1. Keys A.
2. Brožek J.
3. Henschel A.
4. Mickelsen O.
5. Taylor H.L
1950The Biology of Human StarvationUniversity of Minnesota Press
6.
1. Piccione G.
2. Caola G.
3. Refinetti R
2002Circadian modulation of starvation-induced hypothermia in sheep and goatsChronobiology international 19:531–541
7.
1. Sakurada S.
2. Shido O.
3. Sugimoto N.
4. Hiratsuka Y.
5. Yoda T.
6. Kanosue K
2000Autonomic and behavioural thermoregulation in starved ratsThe Journal of physiology 526:417–424
8.
1. Chen Y.
2. Knight Z.A
2016Making sense of the sensory regulation of hunger neuronsBioessays 38:316–324https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500167
9.
1. Power M.L.
2. Schulkin J
2008Anticipatory physiological regulation in feeding biology: cephalic phase responsesAppetite 50:194–206https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.10.006
10.
1. Zafra M.A.
2. Molina F.
3. Puerto A
2006The neural/cephalic phase reflexes in the physiology of nutritionNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 30:1032–1044https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.03.005
11.
1. Pavlov I.P
1902The Work of the Digestive GlandsLondon: Charles Griffin
12.
1. Garrison J.L.
2. Knight Z.A
2017Linking smell to metabolism and agingScience 358:718–719https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao5474
13.
1. LeBlanc J
2000Nutritional implications of cephalic phase thermogenic responsesAppetite 34:214–216https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0283
14.
1. LeBlanc J.
2. Cabanac M
1989Cephalic postprandial thermogenesis in human subjectsPhysiol Behav 46:479–482
15.
1. LeBlanc J.
2. Cabanac M.
3. Samson P
1984Reduced postprandial heat production with gavage as compared with meal feeding in human subjectsThe American journal of physiology 246:E95–101https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.1984.246.1.E95
16.
1. Sayeed O.
2. Benzer S
1996Behavioral genetics of thermosensation and hygrosensation in DrosophilaProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93:6079–6084
17.
1. Dillon M.E.
2. Wang G.
3. Garrity P.A.
4. Huey R.B
2009Review: Thermal preference in DrosophilaJ Therm Biol 34:109–119https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2008.11.007
18.
1. Stevenson R.D
1985Body size and limits to the daily range of body temperature in terrestrial ectothermsAm. Nat :102–117
19.
1. Stevenson R.D
1985The relative importance of behavioral and physiological adjustments controlling body temperature in terrestrial ectothermsThe American Naturalist 126
20.
1. Lin S.
2. Senapati B.
3. Tsao C.H
2019Neural basis of hunger-driven behaviour in DrosophilaOpen Biol 9https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.180259
21.
1. Zhang D.W.
2. Xiao Z.J.
3. Zeng B.P.
4. Li K.
5. Tang Y.L
2019Insect Behavior and Physiological Adaptation Mechanisms Under Starvation StressFrontiers in physiology 10https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00163
22.
1. Umezaki Y.
2. Hayley S.E.
3. Chu M.L.
4. Seo H.W.
5. Shah P.
6. Hamada F.N
2018Feeding-State-Dependent Modulation of Temperature Preference Requires Insulin Signaling in Drosophila Warm-Sensing NeuronsCurrent biology : CB https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.060
23.
1. Berrigan D.
2. Partridge L
1997Influence of temperature and activity on the metabolic rate of adult Drosophila melanogasterComp Biochem Physiol A Physiol 118:1301–1307
24.
1. Schilman P.E.
2. Waters J.S.
3. Harrison J.F.
4. Lighton J.R
2011Effects of temperature on responses to anoxia and oxygen reperfusion in Drosophila melanogasterThe Journal of experimental biology 214:1271–1275https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.052357
25.
1. Ja W.W.
2. Carvalho G.B.
3. Mak E.M.
4. de la Rosa N.N.
5. Fang A.Y.
6. Liong J.C.
7. Brummel T.
8. Benzer S.
2007Prandiology of Drosophila and the CAFE assayProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:8253–8256https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702726104
26.
1. Itskov P.M.
2. Moreira J.M.
3. Vinnik E.
4. Lopes G.
5. Safarik S.
6. Dickinson M.H.
7. Ribeiro C
2014Automated monitoring and quantitative analysis of feeding behaviour in DrosophilaNature communications 5https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5560
27.
1. Wang G.H.
2. Wang L.M
2019Recent advances in the neural regulation of feeding behavior in adult DrosophilaJ Zhejiang Univ Sci B 20:541–549https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1900080
28.
1. Pool A.H.
2. Scott K
2014Feeding regulation in DrosophilaCurr Opin Neurobiol 29:57–63https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.05.008
29.
1. Snell N.J.
2. Fisher J.D.
3. Hartmann G.G.
4. Zolyomi B.
5. Talay M.
6. Barnea G
2022Complex representation of taste quality by second-order gustatory neurons in DrosophilaCurrent biology : CB 32:3758–3772https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.07.048
30.
1. Kim H.
2. Kirkhart C.
3. Scott K
2017Long-range projection neurons in the taste circuit of DrosophilaElife 6https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23386
31.
1. Liu W.W.
2. Mazor O.
3. Wilson R.I
2015Thermosensory processing in the Drosophila brainNature 519:353–357https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14170
32.
1. Frank D.D.
2. Jouandet G.C.
3. Kearney P.J.
4. Macpherson L.J.
5. Gallio M
2015Temperature representation in the Drosophila brainNature 519:358–361https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14284
33.
1. Cedernaes J.
2. Waldeck N.
3. Bass J
2019Neurogenetic basis for circadian regulation of metabolism by the hypothalamusGenes Dev 33:1136–1158https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.328633.119
34.
1. Longo V.D.
2. Panda S
2016Fasting, Circadian Rhythms, and Time-Restricted Feeding in Healthy LifespanCell Metab 23:1048–1059https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2016.06.001
35.
1. Hirayama M.
2. Mure L.
3. and Panda S
2018Circadian regulation of energy intake in mammalsCurrent Opinion in Physiology 5:141–148
36.
1. Greenhill C
2018Benefits of time-restricted feedingNat Rev Endocrinol 14https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-018-0093-2
37.
1. Chaix A.
2. Manoogian E.N.C.
3. Melkani G.C.
4. Panda S
2019Time-Restricted Eating to Prevent and Manage Chronic Metabolic DiseasesAnnu Rev Nutr 39:291–315https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nutr-082018-124320
38.
1. Hamada F.N.
2. Rosenzweig M.
3. Kang K.
4. Pulver S.R.
5. Ghezzi A.
6. Jegla T.J.
7. Garrity P.A
2008An internal thermal sensor controlling temperature preference in DrosophilaNature 454:217–220https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07001
39.
1. Biolchini M.
2. Murru E.
3. Anfora G.
4. Loy F.
5. Banni S.
6. Crnjar R.
7. Sollai G
2017Fat storage in Drosophila suzukii is influenced by different dietary sugars in relation to their palatabilityPloS one 12https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183173
40.
1. Park J.H.
2. Carvalho G.B.
3. Murphy K.R.
4. Ehrlich M.R.
5. Ja W.W
2017Sucralose Suppresses Food IntakeCell Metab 25:484–485https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2017.02.011
41.
1. Dahanukar A.
2. Lei Y.T.
3. Kwon J.Y.
4. Carlson J.R
2007Two Gr genes underlie sugar reception in DrosophilaNeuron 56:503–516https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.024
42.
1. Dus M.
2. Min S.
3. Keene A.C.
4. Lee G.Y.
5. Suh G.S
2011Taste-independent detection of the caloric content of sugar in DrosophilaProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:11644–11649https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017096108
43.
1. Wang Q.P.
2. Lin Y.Q.
3. Zhang L.
4. Wilson Y.A.
5. Oyston L.J.
6. Cotterell J.
7. Qi Y.
8. Khuong T.M.
9. Bakhshi N.
10. Planchenault Y.
11. et al.
2016Sucralose Promotes Food Intake through NPY and a Neuronal Fasting ResponseCell Metab 24:75–90https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2016.06.010
44.
1. Ro J.
2. Harvanek Z.M.
3. Pletcher S.D
2014FLIC: high-throughput, continuous analysis of feeding behaviors in DrosophilaPloS one 9https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101107
45.
1. Yavuz A.
2. Jagge C.
3. Slone J.
4. Amrein H
2014A genetic tool kit for cellular and behavioral analyses of insect sugar receptorsFly 8:189–196https://doi.org/10.1080/19336934.2015.1050569
46.
1. Fujii S.
2. Yavuz A.
3. Slone J.
4. Jagge C.
5. Song X.
6. Amrein H
2015Drosophila sugar receptors in sweet taste perception, olfaction, and internal nutrient sensingCurrent biology : CB 25:621–627https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.058
47.
1. Thoma V.
2. Knapek S.
3. Arai S.
4. Hartl M.
5. Kohsaka H.
6. Sirigrivatanawong P.
7. Abe A.
8. Hashimoto K.
9. Tanimoto H
2016Functional dissociation in sweet taste receptor neurons between and within taste organs of DrosophilaNature communications 7https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10678
48.
1. Baines R.A.
2. Uhler J.P.
3. Thompson A.
4. Sweeney S.T.
5. Bate M
2001Altered electrical properties in Drosophila neurons developing without synaptic transmissionThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 21:1523–1531
49.
1. Klapoetke N.C.
2. Murata Y.
3. Kim S.S.
4. Pulver S.R.
5. Birdsey-Benson A.
6. Cho Y.K.
7. Morimoto T.K.
8. Chuong A.S.
9. Carpenter E.J.
10. Tian Z.
11. et al.
2014Independent optical excitation of distinct neural populationsNat Methods 11:338–346https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2836
50.
1. Simpson J.H.
2. Looger L.L
2018Functional Imaging and Optogenetics in DrosophilaGenetics 208:1291–1309https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.117.300228
51.
1. Ni L.
2. Klein M.
3. Svec K.V.
4. Budelli G.
5. Chang E.C.
6. Ferrer A.J.
7. Benton R.
8. Samuel A.D.
9. Garrity P.A
2016The Ionotropic Receptors IR21a and IR25a mediate cool sensing in DrosophilaElife 5https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13254
52.
1. Umezaki Y.
2. Hayley S.E.
3. Chu M.L.
4. Seo H.W.
5. Shah P.
6. Hamada F.N
2018Feeding-State-Dependent Modulation of Temperature Preference Requires Insulin Signaling in Drosophila Warm-Sensing NeuronsCurrent biology : CB 28:779–787https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.060
53.
1. Tang X.
2. Platt M.D.
3. Lagnese C.M.
4. Leslie J.R.
5. Hamada F.N
2013Temperature integration at the AC thermosensory neurons in DrosophilaThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 33:894–901https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1894-12.2013
54.
1. Nassel D.R.
2. Wegener C
2011A comparative review of short and long neuropeptide F signaling in invertebrates: Any similarities to vertebrate neuropeptide Y signaling?Peptides 32:1335–1355https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2011.03.013
55.
1. Geoghegan J.G.
2. Lawson D.C.
3. Cheng C.A.
4. Opara E.
5. Taylor I.L.
6. Pappas T.N
1993Intracerebroventricular neuropeptide Y increases gastric and pancreatic secretion in the dogGastroenterology 105:1069–1077https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-5085(93)90951-8
56.
1. Lee M.C.
2. Lawson D.C.
3. Pappas T.N
1994Neuropeptide Y functions as a physiologic regulator of cephalic phase acid secretionRegul Pept 52:227–234https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-0115(94)90057-4
57.
1. Dus M.
2. Lai J.S.
3. Gunapala K.M.
4. Min S.
5. Tayler T.D.
6. Hergarden A.C.
7. Geraud E.
8. Joseph C.M.
9. Suh G.S
2015Nutrient Sensor in the Brain Directs the Action of the Brain-Gut Axis in DrosophilaNeuron 87:139–151https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.05.032
58.
1. Lee G.
2. Park J.H
2004Hemolymph sugar homeostasis and starvation-induced hyperactivity affected by genetic manipulations of the adipokinetic hormone-encoding gene in Drosophila melanogasterGenetics 167:311–323
59.
1. Kim S.K.
2. Rulifson E.J
2004Conserved mechanisms of glucose sensing and regulation by Drosophila corpora cardiaca cellsNature 431:316–320https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02897
60.
1. Okamoto N.
2. Yamanaka N.
3. Yagi Y.
4. Nishida Y.
5. Kataoka H.
6. O’Connor M.B.
7. Mizoguchi A
2009A fat body-derived IGF-like peptide regulates postfeeding growth in DrosophilaDev Cell 17:885–891https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2009.10.008
61.
1. Slaidina M.
2. Delanoue R.
3. Gronke S.
4. Partridge L.
5. Leopold P
2009A Drosophila insulin-like peptide promotes growth during nonfeeding statesDev Cell 17:874–884https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2009.10.009
62.
1. Bai H.
2. Kang P.
3. Tatar M
2012Drosophila insulin-like peptide-6 (dilp6) expression from fat body extends lifespan and represses secretion of Drosophila insulin-like peptide-2 from the brainAging Cell 11:978–985https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12000
63.
1. Woodcock K.J.
2. Kierdorf K.
3. Pouchelon C.A.
4. Vivancos V.
5. Dionne M.S.
6. Geissmann F
2015Macrophage-derived upd3 cytokine causes impaired glucose homeostasis and reduced lifespan in Drosophila fed a lipid-rich dietImmunity 42:133–144https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2014.12.023
64.
1. Rajan A.
2. Perrimon N
2012Drosophila cytokine unpaired 2 regulates physiological homeostasis by remotely controlling insulin secretionCell 151:123–137https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.019
65.
1. Xu K.
2. Zheng X.
3. Sehgal A
2008Regulation of feeding and metabolism by neuronal and peripheral clocks in DrosophilaCell Metab 8:289–300https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2008.09.006
66.
1. Kaneko H.
2. Head L.M.
3. Ling J.
4. Tang X.
5. Liu Y.
6. Hardin P.E.
7. Emery P.
8. Hamada F.N
2012Circadian Rhythm of Temperature Preference and Its Neural Control in DrosophilaCurrent biology : CB 22:1851–1857https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.006
67.
1. Masek P.
2. Keene A.C
2013Drosophila fatty acid taste signals through the PLC pathway in sugar-sensing neuronsPLoS genetics 9https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003710
68.
1. Ahn J.E.
2. Chen Y.
3. Amrein H
2017Molecular basis of fatty acid taste in DrosophilaElife 6https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30115
69.
1. Brown E.B.
2. Shah K.D.
3. Palermo J.
4. Dey M.
5. Dahanukar A.
6. Keene A.C
2021Ir56d-dependent fatty acid responses in Drosophila uncover taste discrimination between different classes of fatty acidsElife 10https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67878
70.
1. Croset V.
2. Schleyer M.
3. Arguello J.R.
4. Gerber B.
5. Benton R
2016A molecular and neuronal basis for amino acid sensing in the Drosophila larvaSci Rep 6https://doi.org/10.1038/srep34871
71.
1. Ganguly A.
2. Pang L.
3. Duong V.K.
4. Lee A.
5. Schoniger H.
6. Varady E.
7. Dahanukar A
2017A Molecular and Cellular Context-Dependent Role for Ir76b in Detection of Amino Acid TasteCell Rep 18:737–750https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.12.071
72.
1. Chen Y.D.
2. Dahanukar A
2017Molecular and Cellular Organization of Taste Neurons in Adult Drosophila PharynxCell Rep 21:2978–2991https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.11.041
73.
1. Steck K.
2. Walker S.J.
3. Itskov P.M.
4. Baltazar C.
5. Moreira J.M.
6. Ribeiro C
2018Internal amino acid state modulates yeast taste neurons to support protein homeostasis in DrosophilaElife 7https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31625
74.
1. Nederkoorn C.
2. Smulders F.T.
3. Jansen A
2000Cephalic phase responses, craving and food intake in normal subjectsAppetite 35:45–55https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0328
75.
1. Musso P.Y.
2. Lampin-Saint-Amaux A.
3. Tchenio P.
4. Preat T
2017Ingestion of artificial sweeteners leads to caloric frustration memory in DrosophilaNature communications 8https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01989-0
76.
1. Gruber F.
2. Knapek S.
3. Fujita M.
4. Matsuo K.
5. Bracker L.
6. Shinzato N.
7. Siwanowicz I.
8. Tanimura T.
9. Tanimoto H
2013Suppression of conditioned odor approach by feeding is independent of taste and nutritional value in DrosophilaCurrent biology : CB 23:507–514https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.010
77.
1. Huetteroth W.
2. Perisse E.
3. Lin S.
4. Klappenbach M.
5. Burke C.
6. Waddell S
2015Sweet taste and nutrient value subdivide rewarding dopaminergic neurons in DrosophilaCurrent biology : CB 25:751–758https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.036
78.
1. Inagaki H.K.
2. Jung Y.
3. Hoopfer E.D.
4. Wong A.M.
5. Mishra N.
6. Lin J.Y.
7. Tsien R.Y.
8. Anderson D.J
2014Optogenetic control of Drosophila using a red-shifted channelrhodopsin reveals experience-dependent influences on courtshipNat Methods 11:325–332https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2765
79.
1. Herness S.
2. Zhao F.L
2009The neuropeptides CCK and NPY and the changing view of cell-to-cell communication in the taste budPhysiol Behav 97:581–591https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.02.043
80.
1. Bharucha K.N.
2. Tarr P.
3. Zipursky S.L
2008A glucagon-like endocrine pathway in Drosophila modulates both lipid and carbohydrate homeostasisThe Journal of experimental biology 211:3103–3110https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.016451
81.
1. Giebultowicz J.M
2018Circadian regulation of metabolism and healthspan in DrosophilaFree Radic Biol Med 119:62–68https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.12.025
82.
1. Mazzoccoli G.
2. Pazienza V.
3. Vinciguerra M
2012Clock genes and clock-controlled genes in the regulation of metabolic rhythmsChronobiology international 29:227–251https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2012.658127
83.
1. Lin Y.
2. Han M.
3. Shimada B.
4. Wang L.
5. Gibler T.M.
6. Amarakone A.
7. Awad T.A.
8. Stormo G.D.
9. Van Gelder R.N.
10. Taghert P.H.
2002Influence of the period-dependent circadian clock on diurnal, circadian, and aperiodic gene expression in Drosophila melanogasterProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99:9562–9567https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.132269699
84.
1. Bozek K.
2. Relogio A.
3. Kielbasa S.M.
4. Heine M.
5. Dame C.
6. Kramer A.
7. Herzel H
2009Regulation of clock-controlled genes in mammalsPloS one 4https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004882
85.
1. Chatterjee A.
2. Tanoue S.
3. Houl J.H.
4. Hardin P.E
2010Regulation of gustatory physiology and appetitive behavior by the Drosophila circadian clockCurrent biology : CB 20:300–309https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.055
86.
1. Tang X.
2. Roessingh S.
3. Hayley S.E.
4. Chu M.L.
5. Tanaka N.K.
6. Wolfgang W.
7. Song S.
8. Stanewsky R.
9. Hamada F.N
2017The role of PDF neurons in setting preferred temperature before dawn in DrosophilaElife 6https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23206
87.
1. Alpert M.H.
2. Frank D.D.
3. Kaspi E.
4. Flourakis M.
5. Zaharieva E.E.
6. Allada R.
7. Para A.
8. Gallio M
2020A Circuit Encoding Absolute Cold Temperature in DrosophilaCurrent biology : CB 30:2275–2288https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.04.038
88.
1. Marin E.C.
2. Büld L.
3. Theiss M.
4. Sarkissian T.
5. Roberts R.J.V.
6. Turnbull R.
7. Tamimi I.F.M.
8. Pleijzier M.W.
9. Laursen W.J.
10. Drummond N.
11. et al.
2020Connectomics Analysis Reveals First-Second-, and Third-Order Thermosensory and Hygrosensory Neurons in the Adult Drosophila Brain. Current biology : CB 30:3167–3182https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.028
89.
1. Yadlapalli S.
2. Jiang C.
3. Bahle A.
4. Reddy P.
5. Meyhofer E.
6. Shafer O.T
2018Circadian clock neurons constantly monitor environmental temperature to set sleep timingNature https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25740
90.
1. Jin X.
2. Tian Y.
3. Zhang Z.C.
4. Gu P.
5. Liu C.
6. Han J
2021A subset of DN1p neurons integrates thermosensory inputs to promote wakefulness via CNMa signalingCurrent biology : CB 31:2075–2087https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.02.048
91.
1. King A.N.
2. Barber A.F.
3. Smith A.E.
4. Dreyer A.P.
5. Sitaraman D.
6. Nitabach M.N.
7. Cavanaugh D.J.
8. Sehgal A
2017A Peptidergic Circuit Links the Circadian Clock to Locomotor ActivityCurrent biology : CB 27:1915–1927https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.089
92.
1. Barber A.F.
2. Fong S.Y.
3. Kolesnik A.
4. Fetchko M.
5. Sehgal A
2021Drosophila clock cells use multiple mechanisms to transmit time-of-day signals in the brainProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019826118
93.
1. Cao C.
2. Brown M.R
2001Localization of an insulin-like peptide in brains of two fliesCell and tissue research 304:317–321https://doi.org/10.1007/s004410100367
94.
1. Brogiolo W.
2. Stocker H.
3. Ikeya T.
4. Rintelen F.
5. Fernandez R.
6. Hafen E
2001An evolutionarily conserved function of the Drosophila insulin receptor and insulin-like peptides in growth controlCurrent biology : CB 11:213–221
95.
1. Ikeya T.
2. Galic M.
3. Belawat P.
4. Nairz K.
5. Hafen E
2002Nutrient-dependent expression of insulin-like peptides from neuroendocrine cells in the CNS contributes to growth regulation in DrosophilaCurrent biology : CB 12:1293–1300
96.
1. Rulifson E.J.
2. Kim S.K.
3. Nusse R
2002Ablation of insulin-producing neurons in flies: growth and diabetic phenotypesScience 296:1118–1120https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070058
97.
1. Cavanaugh D.J.
2. Geratowski J.D.
3. Wooltorton J.R.
4. Spaethling J.M.
5. Hector C.E.
6. Zheng X.
7. Johnson E.C.
8. Eberwine J.H.
9. Sehgal A
2014Identification of a circadian output circuit for rest:activity rhythms in DrosophilaCell 157:689–701https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.024
98.
1. Li S.
2. Yu X.
3. Feng Q
2019Fat Body Biology in the Last DecadeAnnu Rev Entomol 64:315–333https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011118-112007
99.
1. Arrese E.L.
2. Soulages J.L
2010Insect fat body: energy, metabolism, and regulationAnnu Rev Entomol 55:207–225https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085356
100.
1. Cintron-Colon R.
2. Sanchez-Alavez M.
3. Nguyen W.
4. Mori S.
5. Gonzalez-Rivera R.
6. Lien T.
7. Bartfai T.
8. Aid S.
9. Francois J.C.
10. Holzenberger M.
11. Conti B
2017Insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor regulates hypothermia during calorie restrictionProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114:9731–9736https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617876114
101.
1. Goda T.
2. Leslie J.R.
3. Hamada F.N
2014Design and analysis of temperature preference behavior and its circadian rhythm in DrosophilaJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE https://doi.org/10.3791/51097

Article and author information

Author information

Yujiro Umezaki
Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Sergio Hidalgo
Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Erika Nguyen
Division of Developmental Biology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA
Tiffany Nguyen
Division of Developmental Biology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA
Jay Suh
Division of Developmental Biology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA
Sheena S. Uchino
Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Joanna C. Chiu
Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Fumika N. Hamada
Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616
- Correspondence: fnhamada@ucdavis.edu Telephone: 530-754-1782 FAX:
- Lead contact

Version history

Preprint posted: November 22, 2023
Sent for peer review: December 5, 2023
Reviewed Preprint version 1: February 28, 2024
Reviewed Preprint version 2: August 20, 2024

Copyright

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

views: 590
downloads: 14
citations: 0

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

Significance of findings

Strength of evidence

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Results

Food detection triggers a warm preference

Hungry flies switch from cold to warm preference upon food detection.

Sucralose refeeding promotes a warm preference

Activation of sweet taste neurons leads to warm preference

Gustatory neurons are essential for taste-evoked warm preference.

The temperature-sensing neurons are involved in taste-evoked warm preference

Both warm- and cold-temperature-sensing neurons are involved with taste-evoked warm preference.

Internal state influences taste-evoked warm preference in hungry flies

Hunger signals are involved in taste-evoked warm preference.

Factors involving hunger regulate taste-evoked warm preference

Flies show a taste-evoked warm preference at all times of the day

Clock genes are involved in taste-evoked warm preference.

Circadian clock genes are required for taste-evoked warm preference, but not nutrient-induced warm preference

The sweet GRNs and temperature-sensing neurons contribute both taste-evoked and nutrient (carbohydrate)-induced warm preference

Discussion

Tp is determined by the taste cue

Internal state influences taste-evoked warm preference

How do hunger signals or clock genes contribute to taste-evoked warm preference?

Taste-evoked warm preference may be CPR in flies

CPR is essential because both starved mammals and starved flies must rapidly regulate their body temperature to survive

Acknowledgements

Contributions

Declaration of Interest

The starvation period is unlikely to affect the ability to recover (Related to Fig. 3)

Number of touches to water, sucralose and glucose using yw, per01 and tim01 flies. (Related to Figures 1, 5, and 6)

Taste- or temperature-sensing neurons are not important for nutrient- (carbohydrate-) induced warm preference (Related to Figures 2 and 3).

MODEL

Materials and Methods

Temperature preference behavioral assay

Temperature preference rhythm (TPR) assay

Optogenetic activation

Optogenetic assay for tubGal80ts; R11F02-Gal4>uas-CsChrimson

Feeding assay

References

Article and author information

Author information

Yujiro Umezaki

Sergio Hidalgo

Erika Nguyen

Tiffany Nguyen

Jay Suh

Sheena S. Uchino

Joanna C. Chiu

Fumika N. Hamada4

Version history

Copyright

Metrics

Number of touches to water, sucralose and glucose using yw, per⁰¹ and tim⁰¹ flies. (Related to Figures 1, 5, and 6)

Optogenetic assay for tubGal80^ts; R11F02-Gal4>uas-CsChrimson

Fumika N. Hamada