Search

Honeybees are a standard model for the study of appetitive learning and memory. Yet, fewer attempts have been performed to characterize aversive learning and memory in this insect and uncover its molecular underpinnings. Here, we took advantage of the positive phototactic behavior of bees kept away from the hive in a dark environment and established a passive-avoidance task in which they had to suppress positive phototaxis. Bees placed in a two-compartment box learned to inhibit spontaneous attraction to a compartment illuminated with blue light by associating and entering into that chamber with shock delivery. Inhibitory learning resulted in an avoidance memory that could be retrieved 24 h after training and that was specific to the punished blue light. The memory was mainly operant but involved a Pavlovian component linking the blue light and the shock. Coupling conditioning with transcriptional analyses in key areas of the brain showed that inhibitory learning of phototaxis leads to an up-regulation of the dopaminergic receptor gene Amdop1 in the calyces of the mushroom bodies, consistently with the role of dopamine signaling in different forms of aversive learning in insects. Our results thus introduce new perspectives for uncovering further cellular and molecular underpinnings of aversive learning and memory in bees. Overall, they represent an important step toward comparative learning studies between the appetitive and the aversive frameworks., (© 2019 Marchal et al.; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.)

Memory is a dynamic process that allows encoding, storage, and retrieval of information acquired through individual experience. In the honeybee Apis mellifera, olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER) has shown that besides short-term memory (STM) and mid-term memory (MTM), two phases of long-term memory (LTM) are formed upon multiple-trial conditioning: an early phase (e-LTM) which depends on translation from already available mRNA, and a late phase (l-LTM) which requires de novo transcription and translation. Here we combined olfactory PER conditioning and neuropharmacological inhibition and studied the involvement of the NO-cGMP pathway, and of specific molecules, such as cyclic nucleotide-gated channels (CNG), calmodulin (CaM), adenylyl cyclase (AC), and Ca(2+)/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase (CaMKII), in the formation of olfactory LTM in bees. We show that in addition to NO-cGMP and cAMP-PKA, CNG channels, CaM, AC, and CaMKII also participate in the formation of a l-LTM (72-h post-conditioning) that is specific for the learned odor. Importantly, the same molecules are dispensable for olfactory learning and for the formation of both MTM (in the minute and hour range) and e-LTM (24-h post-conditioning), thus suggesting that the signaling pathways leading to l-LTM or e-LTM involve different molecular actors.

Social insects possess remarkable learning capabilities, which are crucial for their ecological success. They also exhibit interindividual differences in responsiveness to environmental stimuli, which underlie task specialization and division of labor. Here we investigated for the first time the relationships between sucrose responsiveness, behavioral specialization, and appetitive olfactory learning in ants, including reproductive castes. We show that castes of the ant Camponotus aethiops differ in their responsiveness to sucrose and in their learning success in olfactory conditioning experiments in which sucrose is used as reward. Olfactory learning was better in foragers than in nurses, in agreement with their higher sucrose responsiveness. Interindividual variation in stimulus responsiveness and in learning may be, therefore, a crucial factor for division of labor in social insects.

Latent inhibition (LI) is a decrement in learning performance that results from the nonreinforced pre-exposure of the to-be-conditioned stimulus, in both vertebrates and invertebrates. In vertebrates, LI development involves dopamine and serotonin; in invertebrates there is yet no information. We studied differential olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension response in the honeybee Apis mellifera, and we compared LI in individuals treated with antagonists of biogenic amines (dopamine, octopamine, and serotonin). An antagonist of octopamine receptors and two antagonists of serotonin receptors showed LI disruption. We thus provide evidence that serotonin would participate in the regulation of LI in honeybees.

The honeybee Apis mellifera has emerged as a robust and influential model for the study of classical conditioning, thanks to the existence of a powerful Pavlovian conditioning protocol, the olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension response (PER). In 2011, the olfactory PER conditioning protocol celebrates 50 years since it was first introduced by Kimihisa Takeda in 1961. Here, we review its origins, developments, and perspectives in order to define future research avenues and necessary methodological and conceptual evolutions. We show that olfactory PER conditioning has become a versatile tool for the study of questions in extremely diverse fields in addition to the study of learning and memory and that it has allowed behavioral characterizations, not only of honeybees, but also of other insect species, for which the protocol was adapted. We celebrate, therefore, Takeda's original work and prompt colleagues to conceive and establish further robust behavioral tools for an accurate characterization of insect learning and memory at multiple levels of analysis.

A sophisticated form of nonelemental learning is provided by occasion setting. In this paradigm, animals learn to disambiguate an uncertain conditioned stimulus using alternative stimuli that do not enter into direct association with the unconditioned stimulus. For instance, animals may learn to discriminate odor rewarded from odor nonrewarded trials if these two situations are indicated by different colors that do not themselves become associated with the reward. Despite a growing interest in nonelemental learning in insects, no study has so far attempted to study occasion setting in restrained honeybees, although this would allow direct access to the neural basis of nonelemental learning. Here we asked whether colors can modulate olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex (PER) via an occasion-setting mechanism. We show that intact, harnessed bees are not capable of learning a direct association between color and sucrose. Despite this incapacity, bees solved an occasion-setting discrimination in which colors set the occasion for appropriate responding to an odor that was rewarded or nonrewarded depending on the color. We therefore provide the first controlled demonstration of bimodal (color-odor) occasion setting in harnessed honeybees, which opens the door for studying the neural basis of such bimodal, nonelemental discriminations in insects.

Harnessed bees learn to associate an odorant with an electric shock so that afterward the odorant alone elicits the sting extension response (SER). We studied the dependency of retention on interstimulus interval (ISI), intertrial interval (ITI), and number of conditioning trials in the framework of olfactory SER conditioning. Forward ISIs (conditioned stimulus [CS] before unconditioned stimulus [US]) supported higher retention than a backward one (US before CS) with an optimum around 3 sec. Spaced trials (ITI 10 min) supported higher retention than massed trials (ITI 1 min) and led to the formation of a late long-term memory (l-LTM) that depended on protein synthesis. Our results reaffirm olfactory SER conditioning as a reliable tool for the study of learning and memory.

Blocking occurs when previous training with a stimulus A reduces (blocks) subsequent learning about a stimulus B, when A and B are trained in compound. The question of whether blocking exists in olfactory conditioning of proboscis extension reflex (PER) in honeybees is under debate. The last published accounts on blocking in honeybees state that blocking occurs when odors A and B are similar (the "similarity hypothesis"). We have tested this hypothesis using four odors (1-octanol, 1-nonanol, eugenol, and limonene) chosen on the basis of their chemical and physiological similarity (experiment 1). We established a generalization matrix that measured perceptual similarity. Bees in the "block group" were first trained with an odor A and, in the second phase, with the mixture AB. Bees in the "novel group" (control group) were first trained with an odor N and, in the second phase, with the mixture AB. After conditioning, bees in both groups were tested for their response to B. We assayed all 24 possible combinations for the four odors standing for A, B, and N. We found blocking in four cases, augmentation in two cases, and no difference in 18 cases; odor similarity could not account for these results. We also repeated the experiments with those six odor combinations that gave rise to the similarity hypothesis (experiment 2: 1-hexanol, 1-octanol, geraniol) and found augmentation in one and no effect in five cases. Thus, blocking is not a consistent phenomenon, nor does it depend on odor similarity.

The present work introduces a form of associative mechanosensory conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex (PER) in honeybees. In our paradigm, harnessed honeybees learn the elemental association between mechanosensory, antennal stimulation and a reward of sucrose solution delivered to the proboscis. Thereafter, bees extend their proboscis to the antennal mechanosensory stimulation alone. We show that bees can learn such an association in a side-specific manner, that is, they learn the association on the antennal side that was rewarded and not on the side that was not rewarded. Responding produced by the paired training does likely contain a substantial Pavlovian component. Responding is only elicited by mechanosensory stimulation and not by spurious cues such as olfactory, visual, and contextual ones. The interstimulus interval (ISI) affects one-trial mechanosensory learning: a bell-shaped curve with a maximum of responding approximately 4 sec ISI was obtained. Mechanosensory memory is still operative 24 h after conditioning. Apart from absolute conditioning in which mechanosensory stimulation of one antenna is paired with sucrose, differential, side-specific, mechanosensory conditioning using two mechanosensory stimulations, one rewarded and the other not, is also possible. This paradigm constitutes, therefore, a new standard procedure for further learning studies in honeybees.

We asked whether honeybees, Apis mellifera, could solve a transitive inference problem. Individual free-flying bees were conditioned with four overlapping premise pairs of five visual patterns in a multiple discrimination task (A+ vs. B-, B+ vs. C-, C+ vs. D-, D+ vs. E-, where + and - indicate sucrose reward or absence of it, respectively). They were then tested with the nonadjacent pairs A vs. E and B vs. D. Preference of B to D is consistent with the use of the implicit hierarchy A > B > C > D > E. Equal choice of B and D supports choice based on the associative strength of the stimuli. The bees' choice was determined by their memory constraints: experience with the last premise pair (D+ vs. E-) predominated. In the tests, bees preferred A to E and chose equally B and D. An analysis of the performance in terms of a reward/penalty ratio showed that B had a higher associative strength than D. Thus, bees do not establish transitive inferences but, rather, guide their choices by the joint action of a recency effect and the associative strength of the stimuli. The former supports choice of D, whereas the latter supports choice of B, thus determining equal choice of B and D in the tests.

We investigated the capability of honeybees to discriminate between single odorants, binary olfactory mixtures, and ternary olfactory mixtures in olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex. In Experiment 1, three single odorants (A+, B+, and C+) and three binary mixtures of these odors (AB+, AC+, and BC+) were reinforced while the ternary compound, consisting of all three odors (ABC-), was nonreinforced. In Experiment 2, only one single odorant (A+) and one binary olfactory compound (BC+) were reinforced while the ternary compound (ABC-) consisting of the single odor and the binary compound was nonreinforced. We studied whether bees can solve these problems and whether the course of differentiation can be predicted by the unique cue theory, a modified unique cue theory, or Pearce's configural theory. Honeybees were not able to differentiate reinforced from nonreinforced stimuli in Experiment 1. However, summation to ABC observed at the beginning of training contradicts the predictions of Pearce's configural theory. In Experiment 2, differentiation between the single odorant A and the ternary compound developed more easily than between the binary compound BC and ABC. This pattern of differentiation is in line with a modified unique cue theory and Pearce's configural theory. Summation to ABC at the beginning of training, however, again was at odds with Pearce's configural theory. Thus, olfactory compound processing in honeybees can best be explained by a modified unique cue theory.

Honeybees Apis mellifera can associate an originally neutral odor with a reinforcement of sucrose solution. Forward pairings of odor and reinforcement enable the odor to release the proboscis extension reflex in consecutive tests. Bees can also be conditioned differentially: They learn to respond to a reinforced odor and not to a nonreinforced one. They can also learn to reverse their choice. Here we ask whether honeybees can learn successive olfactory differential conditioning tasks involving different overlapping pairs of odors. The conditioning schedules were established in order to train the animals with 3, 2, 1, or 0 reversals previous to a last differential conditioning phase in which two additional reversals were present. We studied whether or not successive reversal learning is possible and whether or not learning olfactory discrimination reversals affects the solving of subsequent discrimination reversals. Therefore we compared the responses of bees that had experienced reversals with those of bees that had not experienced such reversals when both are confronted with a new reversal situation. In experiment 1 we showed that bees that had experienced three previous reversals were better in solving the final reversal task than bees with no previous reversal experience. In experiment 2, we showed that one reversal learning is enough for bees to perform better in the final reversal task. The successive different reversals trained in our experiments resemble the natural foraging situation in which a honeybee forager has to switch successively from an initial floral species to different ones. The fact that experiencing such changes seems to improve a bee's performance in dealing with further new exploited food sources has therefore an adaptive impact for the individual and for the colony as a whole.

We studied the ability of honeybees to discriminate between single odorants and binary olfactory mixtures. We analyzed the effect of the number of common elements between these two stimulus classes on olfactory discrimination. We used olfactory conditioning of the honeybees' proboscis extension reflex (PER), a paradigm in which odors can be associated with a reinforcement of sucrose solution. Bees were asked to discriminate reinforced from nonreinforced olfactory stimuli. They were trained with two elemental odors (A and B) versus a binary olfactory mixture. The mixture was either AB (group 2CE, two common elements), AC (group 1CE, one common element A), or CD (group 0CE, no common element). Three groups followed a positive patterning schedule (mixture reinforced and elements nonreinforced: groups 2CE+, 1CE+, and 0CE+) and three other groups a negative patterning schedule (mixture nonreinforced and elements reinforced: groups 2CE-, 1CE-, and 0CE-). We showed that a reduction of similarity (number of common elements) between elemental odors and compounds enhanced the ability to discriminate elements from compounds and that the kind of compound processing used by the bees supports theories that assume nonelemental compound processing (i.e., that exclude the mere summation of the elemental associative strengths upon compound presentation).

In an appetitive context, honeybees (Apis mellifera) learn to associate odors with a reward of sucrose solution. If an odor is presented immediately before the sucrose, an elemental association is formed that enables the odor to release the proboscis extension response (PER). Olfactory conditioning of PER was used to study whether, beyond elemental associations, honeybees are able to process configural associations. Bees were trained in a positive and anegative patterning discrimination problem. In the first problem, single odorants were nonreinforced whereas the compound was reinforced. In the second problem, single odorants were reinforced whereas the compound was nonreinforced. We studied whether bees can solve these problems and whether the ratio between the number of presentations of the reinforced stimuli and the number of presentations of the nonreinforced stimuli affects discrimination. Honeybees differentiated reinforced and nonreinforced stimuli in positive and negative patterning discriminations. They thus can process configural associations. The variation of the ratio of reinforced to nonreinforced stimuli modulated the amount of differentiation. The assignment of singular codes to complex odor blends could be implemented at the neural level: When bees are stimulated with odor mixtures, the activation patterns evoked at the primary olfactory neuropile, the antennal lobe, may be combinations of the single odorant responses that are not necessarily fully additive.