Sleep deprivation affects extinction but not acquisition memory in honeybees

Bogusch, Lisa; Landgraf, Tim; Menzel, Randolf

doi:10.1101/lm.1578409

Cited by 58 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Drosophila, although the majority of sleep occurs during the night, flies sleep a substantial amount during the day with males exhibiting more daytime sleep than females. 19,21,[70][71][72] Similarly, forager bees sleep primarily during the night [73][74][75] but also nap during the day. 76 In all other castes, sleep is distributed with approximately equal sleep occurring during the day and the night.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Acute Sleep Deprivation Blocks Short- and Long-Term Operant Memory inAplysia

Krishnan

Gandour

Ramos

et al. 2016

Sleep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Objectives: Insufficient sleep in individuals appears increasingly common due to the demands of modern work schedules and technology use. Consequently, there is a growing need to understand the interactions between sleep deprivation and memory. The current study determined the effects of acute sleep deprivation on short and long-term associative memory using the marine mollusk Aplysia californica, a relatively simple model system well known for studies of learning and memory. Methods: Aplysia were sleep deprived for 9 hours using context changes and tactile stimulation either prior to or after training for the operant learning paradigm, learning that food is inedible (LFI). The effects of sleep deprivation on short-term (STM) and long-term memory (LTM) were assessed. Results: Acute sleep deprivation prior to LFI training impaired the induction of STM and LTM with persistent effects lasting at least 24 h. Sleep deprivation immediately after training blocked the consolidation of LTM. However, sleep deprivation following the period of molecular consolidation did not affect memory recall. Memory impairments were independent of handling-induced stress, as daytime handled control animals demonstrated no memory deficits. Additional training immediately after sleep deprivation failed to rescue the induction of memory, but additional training alleviated the persistent impairment in memory induction when training occurred 24 h following sleep deprivation. Conclusions: Acute sleep deprivation inhibited the induction and consolidation, but not the recall of memory. These behavioral studies establish Aplysia as an effective model system for studying the interactions between sleep and memory formation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…81,82 In contrast, sleep deprivation in bees does not affect the acquisition of memory but rather its consolidation. 18,74 Based on our behavioral studies, Aplysia presents advantages as a simple model system for understanding the interactions between sleep deprivation and the induction of STM and LTM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute Sleep Deprivation Blocks Short- and Long-Term Operant Memory inAplysia

Krishnan

Gandour

Ramos

et al. 2016

Sleep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been widely used in bee neurobiology research. The PER has allowed modelling the neural reflex (Menzel and Giurfa, 2001); to characterize the different levels of memory in the honey bee (Menzel, 2001); to assess bees' ability to discriminate between comb-waxes of differing ages (Fröhlich et al, 2000); to discriminate healthy brood from sick one (Gramacho and Spivak, 2003) or to measure the effect of sleep-deprivation on the memory capacity of the bee (Hussaini et al, 2009). Various laboratories have already used the PER test to assess toxicity at sublethal doses/concentrations (Pham-Delègue et al, 2002;Decourtye et al, 2005, Guez et al, 2001, Bernadou et al, 2009CRA-API, 2010).…”

Section: Behavioural Sub-lethal Endpoints: Proboscis Extension Reflexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera,Bombusspp. and solitary bees)

2012

EFSA Journal

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The PPR Panel was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). Specific protection goals options were suggested based on the ecosystem services approach. The different routes of exposure were analysed in detail for different categories of bees. The existing test guidelines were evaluated and suggestions for improvement and further research needs were listed. A simple prioritisation tool to assess cumulative effects of single pesticides using mortality data is suggested. Effects from repeated and simultanous exposure and synergism are discussed. Proposals for separate risk assessment schemes, one for honey bees and one for bumble bees and solitary bees, were developed. © European Food Safety Authority, 2012 KEY WORDSGuidance Document, PPR opinion, honey bees, bumble bees, solitary bees, pesticide, risk assessment (2010). Pollination, hive products (for honey-bees only) and biodiversity (specifically addressed under genetic resources and cultural services) were identified as relevant ecosystem services. It was suggested to define the attributes to protect as survival and development of colonies and effects on larvae and honey bee behaviour as listed in regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In addition, abundance/biomass and reproduction were also suggested because of their importance for the development and long-term survival of colonies. The magnitude of effects was defined as negligible if the natural background mortality compared to controls was not exceeded. Further work is needed to give recommendations on the deviation from the controls up to which an effect is still considered negligible. The current methods of field testing would need major improvements in order to detect for example an increase in daily mortality of foragers by 10% with high statistical power. Based on expert judgement it was considered that a small effect could be tolerated for few days without putting the survival of a hive at risk. Further research (modelling) is proposed to clarify this question and to revise the proposal for the magnitude of effects and the temporal scale of effects. The current risk assessment for honey bees relies on an Hazard Quotient (HQ) approach (application rate/LD50) in lower tiers and on semi-field and field tests in higher tiers. It is particularly difficult to ascertain whether a specific exposure percentile is achieved in field studies. Decisions need to be taken on how conservative the exposure estimate should be and what percentage of exposure situations should be covered in the risk assessment. It is recommended to design a flow chart for checking whether exposure in the semi-field or field study was indeed higher than that corresponding to the desired percentile. Factors that may be included are: the crop and its developmental stage, the dosage, measures ensuring that bees are coming into contact with the compound/formulation, weather conditions, and for instance t...

show abstract

“…SD is known to result in robust cognitive impairments in humans (10), rodents (11), bees (12), and flies (13,14). However, the extent to which prolonged waking will result in cognitive impairments is strongly influenced by the environmental context.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

foraging alters resilience/vulnerability to sleep disruption and starvation in Drosophila

Donlea

Leahy

Thimgan

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent human studies suggest that genetic polymorphisms allow an individual to maintain optimal cognitive functioning during sleep deprivation. If such polymorphisms were not associated with additional costs, selective pressures would allow these alleles to spread through the population such that an evolutionary alternative to sleep would emerge. To determine whether there are indeed costs associated with resiliency to sleep loss, we challenged natural allelic variants of the foraging gene (for) with either sleep deprivation or starvation. Flies with high levels of Protein Kinase G (PKG) (for R ) do not display deficits in short-term memory following 12 h of sleep deprivation. However, short-term memory is significantly disrupted when for R flies are starved overnight. In contrast, flies with low levels of PKG (for s , for s2 ) show substantial deficits in short-term memory following sleep deprivation but retain their ability to learn after 12 h of starvation. We found that for R phenotypes could be largely recapitulated in for s flies by selectively increasing the level of PKG in the α/β lobes of the mushroom bodies, a structure known to regulate both sleep and memory. Together, these data indicate that whereas the expression of for may appear to provide resilience in one environmental context, it may confer an unexpected vulnerability in other situations. Understanding how these tradeoffs confer resilience or vulnerability to specific environmental challenges may provide additional clues as to why an evolutionary alternative to sleep has not emerged.A lthough sleep is a behavioral state that is conserved across a diverse range of species, the biological functions of sleep remain unknown. Sleep deprivation (SD) has been shown to negatively impact cognition, but individual responses to sleep loss can vary significantly within a population (1). Recent studies suggest that a portion of this variability may be influenced by genetic factors (2). For example, polymorphisms for PERIOD 3 (PER3), a circadian clock gene, can predict the magnitude of cognitive impairment and sleep homeostasis in response to a night of SD in humans (2). Although these genetic contributions may attenuate impairments following SD, the tradeoffs associated with resistance to sleep loss remain unknown. Presumably, the potential costs must be substantial. Thus, it is likely that the price of protection from sleep loss that can be conferred by allelic variation in one environment may induce a cost when manifested in a different environment. To date, putative costs of resiliency to sleep loss have not been identified in humans or any model organism.foraging (for), which codes for Protein Kinase G (PKG), is maintained in wild-type populations as a genetic polymorphism that results in either higher or lower levels of PKG activity (3). The allele associated with higher levels of PKG ("rover"; for R ) results in larvae with longer foraging trails between food patches, whereas the allele associated with lower levels of PKG ("sitter"; for s ) results i...

show abstract

Sleep deprivation affects extinction but not acquisition memory in honeybees

Cited by 58 publications

References 50 publications

Acute Sleep Deprivation Blocks Short- and Long-Term Operant Memory inAplysia

Acute Sleep Deprivation Blocks Short- and Long-Term Operant Memory inAplysia

Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera,Bombusspp. and solitary bees)

foraging alters resilience/vulnerability to sleep disruption and starvation in Drosophila

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About