Abstract
The question of the roles of the two main parts of the insect brain, the mushroom bodies and the central complex, in controlling motor coordination and triggering a variety of behavioral programs, including sound production, remains controversial. With the aim of improving our understanding of this question, we studied the parameters of songs used by five-day-old males during courtship for fertilized wild-type females (Canton-S, C-S) over 5-min periods at 25°C; males were of two wild-type Drosophila Melanogaster lines (Berlin and C-S). Berlin males lacking mushroom bodies because of treatment with hydroxyurea during development (chemical removal of the mushroom bodies) were used, along with two mutants with defects in the mushroom bodies (mbm 1 and mud 1), two mutants with defects in the central complex (ccb KS127 and cex KS181), and mutant cxb N71 with defects in both the mushroom bodies and the central complex. The experiments reported here showed that courtship songs in males lacking mushroom bodies were virtually identical to those of wild-type males. The main parameters of pulsatile song in mutants mbm 1 and mud 1 (interpulse interval and train duration) were insignificantly different from those of the songs of wild-type flies, though the stability of the pulse oscillator was the same. Flies of these lines were no different from wild-type flies in terms of courtship success (percentage of copulating pairs in 10-min tests). Conversely, the songs of mutants with defects in the central complex differed from those of wild-type males. Firstly, there was degradation of the stability of the pulse oscillator and interpulse intervals were very variable. In addition, pulses were often significantly longer and appeared multicyclic, as in the well-known cacophony mutant, while the mean train duration was significantly shorter. Males of the line cex KS181 usually courted very intensely, though abnormal sounds were generally emitted. Mutants cex KS181 and ccb KS127 were significantly less successful in courtship than wild-type flies. These data show that the central complex appears to play a very important role in controlling song, while the mushroom bodies are not related to this function.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
A. V. Popov, E. V. Savvateeva-Popova, and N. G. Kamyshev, “Characteristics of acoustic communication in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster,” Sensor. Sistemy, 14, 60–74 (2000).
V. L. Sviderskii, Basic Insect Neurophysiology [in Russian], Nauka. Leningrad (1980).
J. S. de Velle and M. Heisenberg, “Associative odor learning in Drosophila abolished by chemical ablation of mushroom bodies,” Science, 263, 692–695 (1994).
J. S. de Belle and M. Heisenberg, “Expression of Drosophila mushroom body mutations in alternative genetic backgrounds. A case study of the mushroom body miniature gene (mbm),” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93, 9875–9880 (1996).
H. C. Bennett-Clark, “A particle velocity microphone for the song of small insects and other acoustic measurements,” J. Exp. Biol., 108, 459–463 (1984).
H. C. Bennett-Clark and A. W. Ewing, “The love song of the fruit fly,” Sci. Amer., 223, 85–92 (1970).
A. W. Ewing, “The neuromuscular basis of courtship song in Drosophila: the role of the direct and axillary wing muscles,” J. Comp. Physiol., A130, 87–93 (1979).
A. W. Ewing, “The role of feedback during singing and flight in Drosophila melanogaster,” Physiol. Entomol., 4, 329–337 (1979).
A. W. Ewing, “Functional aspects of Drosophila courtship,” Biol. Rev., 58, 275–292.
A. W. Ewing, Arthropod Bioacoustics: Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University Press, New York (1989).
P. J. Fonseca and A. V. Popov, “Sound radiation in a cicada: the role of different structures,” J. Comp. Physiol., A175, 349–361 (1994).
J. C. Hall, “Portions of the central nervous system controlling reproductive behavior in Drosophila melanogaster,” Behav. Genet., 7, 291–312 (1977).
U. Hanesch, K.-F. Fischback, and M. Heisenberg, “Neuronal architecture of the central complex in Drosophila melanogaster,” Cell Tiss. Res., 257, 343–366 (1989).
B. Hedwig, “On the role in stridulation of plurisegmental interneurons of the acridid grasshopper Omocestus viridulus L. Anatomy and physiology of descending cephalothoracic interneurons,” J. Comp. Physiol., A158, 413–417 (1986).
B. Hedwig and N. Elsner, “Sound production and sound detection in a stridulating acridid grasshopper (Omocestus viridulus),” in: Acoustic and Vibrational Communication in Insects, K. Kalmring and N. Elsner (eds.), Parey, Hamburg (1985), pp. 61–72.
M. Heisenberg, “Mutants of brain structure and function. What is the significance of the mushroom bodies for behavior?” in: Development and Neurobiology of Drosophila, O. Siddigi, P. Babu, L. M. Hall, and J. C. Hall (eds.), Plenum Press, New York (1980), pp. 373–390.
M. Heisenberg, “Genetic approach to learning and memory (mnemogenetics) in Drosophila melanogaster,” in: Fundamentals of Memory Formation. Neuronal Plasticity and Brain Function, H. Rahmann (ed.), Fischer, Stuttgart (1989), pp. 3–45.
M. Heisenberg, “Central brain function in insects: genetic studies on the mushroom bodies and central complex in Drosophila,” Fortschritte der Zoologie, 39, 61–79 (1994).
M. Heisenberg, A. Borst, S. Wagner, and D. Byers, “Drosophila mushroom body mutants are deficient in olfactory learning,” J. Neurogenet., 2, 1–30 (1985).
Y. Hotta and S. Benzer, “Mapping of behavior in Drosophila mosaics,” Nature, 240, 527–535 (1976).
F. Huber, Th. E. Moore, and W. Loher (Eds.), Cricket Behavior and Neurobiology, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, London (1989).
J.-R. Martin, T. Raabe, and M. Heisenberg, “Central complex substructures are required for the maintenance of locomotor activity in Drosophila melanogaster,” J. Comp. Physiol., A185, 277–288 (1999).
K. O'Dell and J. S. de Belle, “The role of mushroom bodies in male courtship behavior in Drosophila,” J. Neurogenet., 10, 40 (1995).
A. A. Peixoto and J. C. Hall, “Analysis of temperature-sensitive mutants reveals new genes involved in the courtship song of Drosophila,” Genetics, 148, 827–838 (1998).
A. V. Popov, “Sound production and hearing in the cicada, Cicadetta sinuatipennis Osh. (Homoptera, Cicadidae),” J. Comp. Physiol., A142, 271–280 (1981).
E. V. Savvateeva, A. V. Popov, N. G. Kamyshev, J. V. Bragina, M. Heisenberg, D. Senitz, J. Kornhuber, and P. Riederer, “Age-dependent memory loss, synaptic pathology and altered brain plasticity in the Drosophila mutant cardinal accumulating 3-hydroxykynurenine,” J. Neural Transm., 107, 581–601 (2000).
F. von Schilcher, “The role of auditory stimuli in the courtship of Drosophila melanogaster,” Anim. Behav., 24, 18–26 (1976).
F. von. Schilcher, “The function of pulse song and sine song in the courtship of Drosophila melanogaster,” Anim. Behav., 24, 622–625 (1976).
F. von Schilcher and J. C. Hall, “Neuronal topography of courtship song in sex mosaics of Drosophila melanogaster,” J. Comp. Physiol., A129, 85–98 (1979).
R. Strauss and M. Heisenberg, “A higher control center of locomotor behavior in the Drosophila brain,” J. Neurosci., 13, 1852–1861 (1993).
G. Technau and M. Heisenberg, “Neural reorganization during metamorphosis of the corpora pedunculata in Drosophila melanogaster,” Nature (London), 295, 405–407 (1982).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Popov, A.V., Sitnik, N.A., Savvateeva-Popova, E.V. et al. The Role of Central Parts of the Brain in the Control of Sound Production during Courtship in Drosophila Melanogaster. Neurosci Behav Physiol 33, 53–65 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021179331583
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021179331583