Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 157, Issue 2, pp 263–277 | Cite as

Classical conditioning and retention in normal and mutantDrosophila melanogaster

  • Tim Tully
  • William G. Quinn


By changing the conditioned discrimination paradigm of Quinn et al. (1974) from an instrumental procedure to a classical (Pavlovian) one, we have demonstrated strong learning in type flies. About 150 flies were sequestered in a closed chamber and trained by explosing them sequentially to two odors in air currents. Flies received twelve electric shock pulses in the presence of the first odor (CS+) but not in the presence of the second odor (CS−). To test for conditioned avoidance responses, flies were transported to a Tmaze choice point, between converging currents of the two odors. Typically, 95% of trained flies avoided the shock-associated odor (CS+).

Acquisition of learning was a function of the number of shock pulses received during CS+ presentation and was asymptotic within one training cycle. Conditioned avoidance increased with increasing shock intensity or odor concentration and was very resistant to extinction. Learning was best when CS+ presentations overlap shock (delay conditioning) and then decreased with increasing CS-US interstimulus intervals. Shocking flies immediately before CS+ presentation (backward conditioning) produced no learning. Nonassociative control procedures (CS Alone, US Alone and Explicitly Unpaired) produced slight decreases in avoidance responses, but these affected both odors equally and did not alter our associative learning index (A).

Memory in wild-type flies decayed gradually over the first seven hours after training and still was present 24 h later. The mutantsamnesiac, rutabaga anddunce showed appreciable learning acquisition, but their memories decayed very rapidly during the first 30 min. After this, the rates of decay slowed sharply; conditioned avoidance still was measurable at least three hours after training.


Classical Conditioning Avoidance Response Conditioned Discrimination Shock Intensity Closed Chamber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.









conditioned stimulus


unconditioned stimulus


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aceves-Pina EO, Quinn WG (1979) Learning in normal and mutantDrosophila larvae. Science 206:93–95Google Scholar
  2. Aceves-Pina EO, Booker R, Duerr JS, Livingstone MS, Quinn WG, Smith RF, Sziber PP, Tempel BL, Tully TP (1983) Learning and memory inDrosophila, studied with mutants. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 48:831–840Google Scholar
  3. Booker R, Quinn WG (1981) Conditioning of leg position in normal and mutantDrosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3940–3944Google Scholar
  4. Brostrom CO, Brostrom MA, Wolff DJ (1977) Calciumdependent adenylate cyclase from rat cerebral cortex. J Biol Chem 252:5677–5685Google Scholar
  5. Byers D (1980) Studies on learning and cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase of thedunce mutant ofDrosophila melanogaster. Doctoral Dissertation. California Institute of Technology, PasedinaGoogle Scholar
  6. Byers D, Davis RL, Kiger JA (1981) Defect in cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase due to thedunce mutation of learning inDrosophila melanogaster. Nature 289:79–81Google Scholar
  7. Camardo JS, Shuster MS, Siegelbaum SA, Kandel ER (1983) Modulation of a specific K+ channel in sensory neurons ofAplysia by serotonin and cyclic AMP dependent protein phosphorylation. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 48:213–220Google Scholar
  8. Carew TJ, Hawkins, RD, Kandel ER (1983) Differential classical conditioning of a defensive withdrawal reflex inAplysia californica. Science 219:397–400Google Scholar
  9. Castellucci VF, Nairn AC, Greengard P, Schwartz JH, Kandel ER (1982) Inhibitor of adenosine 3′∶5-monophosphate-dependent protein kinase blocks presynaptic facilitation inAplysia. J Neurosci 2:1673Google Scholar
  10. Cline TW (1978) Two closely linked mutations inDrosophila melanogaster that are lethal to opposite sexes and interact with daughterless. Genetics 90:683–698Google Scholar
  11. DeJianne D, McGuire TR, Pruzan-Hotchkiss A (1985) Pavlovian counterconditioning of proboscis extension inDrosophila melanogaster. J Comp Psychol 99:74–80Google Scholar
  12. Dewhurst SA, Croker SG, Ikeda K, McCaman RE (1972) Metabolism of biogenic amines inDrosophila nervous tissue. Comp Biochem Physiol 438:975–981Google Scholar
  13. Dudai Y (1977) Properties of learning and memory inDrosophila melanogaster. J Comp Physiol 114:69–89Google Scholar
  14. Dudai Y (1979) Behavioral plasticity in aDrosophila mutant, dunceDB276. J Comp Physiol 130:271–275Google Scholar
  15. Dudai Y (1983) Mutations affect storage and use of memory differentially inDrosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:5445–5448Google Scholar
  16. Dudai Y (1984) A calcium-stimulated subpopulation of adenylate cyclase is a putative component of a memory apparatus inDrosophila. Neurosc Abstr 10:269Google Scholar
  17. Dudai Y, Bicker (1978) Comparison of visual and olfactory learning inDrosophila. Naturwissenschaften 65:494–495Google Scholar
  18. Dudai Y, Jan YN, Byers D, Quinn WG, Benzer S (1976)dunce, a mutant ofDrosophila deficient in learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73:1684–1688Google Scholar
  19. Duerr JS, Quinn WG (1982) ThreeDrosophila mutations which block associative learning also affect habituation and sensitization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79:3646–3650Google Scholar
  20. Folkers E (1982) Visual learning and memory ofDrosophila melanogaster wild-type C-S and the mutantsdunce amnesiac turnip andrutabaga. J Insect Physiol 28:535–539Google Scholar
  21. Gailey DA, Jackson FR, Siegel RW (1982) Male courtship inDrosophila: The conditioned response to immature males and its genetic control. Genetics 102:771–782Google Scholar
  22. Gailey DA, Jackson FR, Siegel RW (1984) Conditioning mutations inDrosophila melanogaster affect an experiencedependent behavioral modification in courting males. Genetics 106:613–625Google Scholar
  23. Gelperin A (1983) Neuroethological studies of associative learning in feeding control systems. In: Huber F, Markl H (eds) Neuroethology and behavioral physiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 189–205Google Scholar
  24. Gilbert RM, Sutherland NS (1969) Animal discrimination learning. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawkins RD, Abrams SW, Carew TJ, Kandel ER (1983) A cellular mechanism of classical conditioning inAplysia: activity-dependent enhancement of presynaptic facilitation. Science 219:400–405Google Scholar
  26. Horridge GA (1962) Learning of leg position by headless insects. Nature 193:697–698Google Scholar
  27. Jellies JA (1981) Associative olfactory conditioning inDrosophila melanogaster and memory retention through metamorphosis. Masters Thesis. Illinois State University, NormalGoogle Scholar
  28. Kandel ER, Abrams T, Bernier L, Carew TJ, Hawkins RD, Schwartz JH (1983) Classical conditioning and sensitization share aspects of the same molecular cascade inAplysia. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 48:821–830Google Scholar
  29. Kauvar LM (1982) Defective cyclic adenosine 3′5′ monophosphate phosphodiesterase in theDrosophila memory mutantdunce. J Neurosci 3:1347–1358Google Scholar
  30. Kiger JA, Golanty E (1979) A genetically distinct form of cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase associated with chromomere 3D4 inDrosophila melanogaster. Genetics 91:521–535Google Scholar
  31. Lindsley DL, Grell EH (1968) Genetic variations ofDrosophila melanogaster. Carnegie Inst Washington. Publ 627Google Scholar
  32. Livingstone MS, Tempel BL (1983) Genetic dissection of monoamine transmitter synthesis inDrosophila. Nature 303:67–70Google Scholar
  33. Livingstone MS, Sziber PP, Quinn WG (1984) Loss of calcium/calmodulin responsiveness in adenylate cyclase ofrutabaga, aDrosophila learning mutant. Cell 37:205–215Google Scholar
  34. Mackintosh NJ (1974) The psychology of animal learning. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. McGuire TR (1984) Learning in three species of Diptera: the blow flyPhormia regina, the fruit flyDrosophila melanogaster and the house flyMusca domestica. Behav Genet 14:479–526Google Scholar
  36. Medioni J, Vaysse G (1975) Suppression conditionnelle d'un réflexe chez la Drosophile (Drosophila melanogaster): acquisition et extinction. CR Acad Sci (Paris) 169:1386–1391Google Scholar
  37. Menne D, Spatz HC (1977) Colour vision inDrosophila melanogaster. J Comp Physiol 114:301–312Google Scholar
  38. Menzel R, Bitterman ME (1983) Learning by honeybees in an unnatural situation. In: Huber F, Markl H (eds) Neuroethology and behavioral physiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 206–215Google Scholar
  39. Pavlov IP (1927) Conditioned Reflexes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Platt SA, Holliday M, Drudge OW (1980) Discrimination learning of an instrumental response in individualDrosophila melanogaster. J Exp Psychol: Animal behavior processes 6:301–311Google Scholar
  41. Quinn WG, Dudai Y (1976) Memory phases inDrosophila. Nature 262:576–577Google Scholar
  42. Quinn WG, Harris WA, Benzer S (1974) Conditioned behavior inDrosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71:708–712Google Scholar
  43. Quinn WG, Sziber PP, Booker R (1979) TheDrosophila memory mutantamnesiac. Nature 277:212–214Google Scholar
  44. Rescorla RA (1967) Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychol Rev 74:71–80Google Scholar
  45. Rescorla RA (1969) Pavlovian conditioned inhibition. Psychol Bull 72:77–94Google Scholar
  46. Schwartz JH, Bernier L, Castellucci VF, Palazzolo M, Saitoh T, Stapleton A, Kandel ER (1983) What molecular steps determine the time course of the memory for short-term sensitization inAplysia? Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 48:811–819Google Scholar
  47. Siegel RW, Hall JC (1979) Conditioned responses in courtship behavior of normal and mutantDrosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:3430–3434Google Scholar
  48. Shotwell SL (1983) Cyclic adenosine 3′5′monophosphate phosphodiesterase and its role in learning inDrosophila. J Neurosci 3:739–747Google Scholar
  49. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  50. Tempel BL, Bonini N, Dawson DR, Quinn WG (1983) Reward learning in normal and mutantDrosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:1482–1486Google Scholar
  51. Tempel BL, Livingstone MS, Quinn WG (1984) Mutations in the dopa decarboxylase gene affect learning inDrosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:3577–3581Google Scholar
  52. Tompkins L, Siegel RW, Gailey DA, Hall JC (1983) Conditioned courtship inDrosophila and its mediation by association of chemical cues. Behav Genet 13:565–578Google Scholar
  53. Tully T (1984)Drosophila learning: behavior and biochemistry. Behav Genet 14:527–557Google Scholar
  54. Tully T, Zawistowski S, Hirsch J (1982) Behavior-genetic analysis ofPhormia regina: III. A phenotypic correlation between the central excitatory state (CES) and conditioning remains in replicated F2 generations of hybrid crosses. Behav Genet 12:181–191Google Scholar
  55. Vargo MA (1984) The behavior-genetic analysis ofDrosophila melanogaster using the central excitatory state. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  56. Walters ET, Byrne JH (1983) Associative conditioning of single sensory neurons suggest a cellular mechanism for learning. Science 219:405–408Google Scholar
  57. Wright TRF (1977) The genetics of dopa decarboxylase and methyl dopa sensitivity inDrosophila melanogaster. Am Zool 17:707–721Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Tully
    • 1
  • William G. Quinn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations