Learning In Honeybees Research Articles

The molecular signalling processes underlying olfactory learning and memory formation in honeybees

The honeybee Apis mellifera provides the opportunity to study molecular signalling processes underlying olfactory learning and memory formation in intact animals. Applying innovative techniques to monitor and manipulate signalling processes in vivo during learning led to the identification of dynamic signalling events that contribute to different facets of olfactory learning and memory formation. these techniques opened novel insights into how different training strengths change the dynamics of individual molecular signalling processes, resulting in the induction and maintenance of distinct memory phases. To date, the major contributors were believed to be the mushroom bodies, as shown in Drosophila. This in vivo work now adds the insight that processes localised in the antennal lobes also contribute considerably to the memory processes. In addition, it shows that the effects of satiation on appetitive learning and memory is most likely mediated by so far unidentified molecular signalling pathways, as the aforementioned evolutionarily conserved and well-known pathways are only partially involved.

The Use of the First Order System Transfer Function in the Analysis of Proboscis Extension Learning of Honey Bees, Apis mellifera L., Exposed to Pesticides

No attempts have been made to apply a mathematical model to the learning curve in honey bees exposed to pesticides. We applied a standard transfer function in the form Y=B3*exp(-B2*(X-1))+B4*(1-exp(-B2*(X-1))), where X is the trial number; Y is proportion of correct responses, B2 is the learning rate, B3 is readiness to learn and B4 is ability to learn. Reanalyzing previously published data on the effect of insect growth regulators tebufenozide and diflubenzuron on the classical conditioning of proboscis extension, the model revealed additional effects not detected with standard statistical tests of significance.

Feature-positive and feature-negative learning in honey bees

Honey bees (Apis mellifera anatolica) were subjected to sequential trials where they were given the choice between a feature-positive and a feature-negative feeding plate. The 'feature' being manipulated is the presence of a single blue circle among three circles marking the location of a small sucrose reward. That is, a 'feature-negative' target had three white circles, while a 'feature-positive' target had two white circles and one blue one. Two experiments were performed. In both experiments, each bee was tested under two different reward scenarios (treatments). In the first experiment, during the feature-positive treatment bees received 4 μl of 2 mol l(-1) sucrose when choosing the feature-positive plate, but received 4 μl of saturated NaCl solution (saltwater) when choosing the feature-negative plate. During the feature-negative treatment, bees were rewarded when visiting the feature-negative plate, while visitation to the feature-positive plate only offered bees the saltwater. The second experiment was a repeat of the first except that pure water was offered instead of saltwater in the non-rewarding feeding plate. As an experimental control, a set of bees was offered sequential trials where both the feature-positive and feature-negative plates offered the sucrose reward. Bee feeding plate choice differed between the feature-positive and feature-negative treatments in both experiments. Bees favored the feeding plate type with the sucrose reward in each treatment, and never consumed the saltwater or pure water when encountered in either treatment. Further, behavior of bees during both the feature-positive and feature-negative treatments differed from that of control bees. However, neither feature-positive nor feature-negative learning reached high levels of success. Further, a feature-positive effect was seen when pure water was offered; bees learned to solve the feature-positive problem more rapidly. When we tested bees using simply the choice of blue versus white targets, where one color held the sucrose reward and the other the saltwater, a bee's fidelity to the color offering the sucrose reward quickly reached very high levels.

Visual conditioning of the sting extension reflex in harnessed honeybees

Visual performances of honeybees have been extensively studied using free-flying individuals trained to choose visual stimuli paired with sucrose reward. By contrast, harnessed bees in the laboratory were not thought to be capable of learning a Pavlovian association between a visual stimulus (CS) and sucrose reward (US). For reasons as yet unknown, harnessed bees only learn visual cues in association with sucrose if their antennae are ablated. However, slow acquisition and low retention performances are obtained in this case. Here, we established a novel visual conditioning protocol, which allows studying visual learning and memory in intact harnessed bees in the laboratory. This protocol consists of conditioning the sting extension reflex (SER) by pairing a visual stimulus (CS+) with an electric shock punishment (US), and a different visual stimulus (CS-) with the absence of shock. Bees with intact antennae learned the discrimination between CS+ and CS- by using chromatic cues, achromatic cues or both. Antennae ablation was not only unnecessary for learning to occur but it even impaired visual SER conditioning because of a concomitant reduction of responsiveness to the electric shock. We thus established the first visual conditioning protocol on harnessed honeybees that does not require injuring the experimental subjects. This novel experimental approach opens new doors for accessing the neural correlates of visual learning and memory in honeybees.

Effects of cold immobilization and recovery period on honeybee learning, memory, and responsiveness to sucrose

In addition to human error and variation in laboratory conditions, there are numerous factors that can complicate comparisons among studies. Furthermore, differences in how experimental methods are executed can make it difficult to distinguish between effects of focal versus extraneous variables. Insect neural function is commonly evaluated using Pavlovian conditioning techniques; learning and memory in many species can be assessed using the proboscis extension reflex (PER). However, there are significant inconsistencies in methods used to immobilize insects prior to PER tests. We compared responses of honeybees immobilized in a refrigerator, on ice, and in a freezer, and evaluated influence of recovery interval before testing. Ice-chilling weakly decreased learning (response to an originally neutral odor) more so than refrigeration or freezing, but not 24-h recall of odor. We found no significant differences in responsiveness to sucrose relative to cooling method, but responsiveness was significantly lower among honeybees left to recover for only 0.75 h versus 1.5 or 3 h. Finally, we observed increased responsiveness to sucrose and geraniol between June and August. Our results suggest that inconsistencies in cold immobilization methods could confound interpretation and comparison of results from a large body of work on honeybee learning and memory.

Remembering Nutrient Quality of Sugar in Drosophila

Taste is an early stage in food and drink selection for most animals [1, 2]. Detecting sweetness indicates the presence of sugar and possible caloric content. However, sweet taste can be an unreliable predictor of nutrient value because some sugars cannot be metabolized. In addition, discrete sugars are detected by the same sensory neurons in the mammalian [3] and insect [4, 5] gustatory systems, making it difficult for animals to readily distinguish the identity of different sugars using taste alone [6-8]. Here we used an appetitive memory assay in Drosophila [9-11] to investigate the contribution of palatability and relative nutritional value of sugars to memory formation. We show that palatability and nutrient value both contribute to reinforcement of appetitive memory. Nonnutritious sugars formed less robust memory that could be augmented by supplementing with a tasteless but nutritious substance. Nutrient information is conveyed to the brain within minutes of training, when it can be used to guide expression of a sugar-preference memory. Therefore, flies can rapidly learn to discriminate between sugars using a postingestive reward evaluation system, and they preferentially remember nutritious sugars.

Color modulates olfactory learning in honeybees by an occasion-setting mechanism

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.

Behavioral and neurophysiological study of olfactory perception and learning in honeybees.

The honeybee Apis mellifera has been a central insect model in the study of olfactory perception and learning for more than a century, starting with pioneer work by Karl von Frisch. Research on olfaction in honeybees has greatly benefited from the advent of a range of behavioral and neurophysiological paradigms in the Lab. Here I review major findings about how the honeybee brain detects, processes, and learns odors, based on behavioral, neuroanatomical, and neurophysiological approaches. I first address the behavioral study of olfactory learning, from experiments on free-flying workers visiting artificial flowers to laboratory-based conditioning protocols on restrained individuals. I explain how the study of olfactory learning has allowed understanding the discrimination and generalization ability of the honeybee olfactory system, its capacity to grant special properties to olfactory mixtures as well as to retain individual component information. Next, based on the impressive amount of anatomical and immunochemical studies of the bee brain, I detail our knowledge of olfactory pathways. I then show how functional recordings of odor-evoked activity in the brain allow following the transformation of the olfactory message from the periphery until higher-order central structures. Data from extra- and intracellular electrophysiological approaches as well as from the most recent optical imaging developments are described. Lastly, I discuss results addressing how odor representation changes as a result of experience. This impressive ensemble of behavioral, neuroanatomical, and neurophysiological data available in the bee make it an attractive model for future research aiming to understand olfactory perception and learning in an integrative fashion.

Aversive reinforcement improves visual discrimination learning in free-flying honeybees.

BackgroundLearning and perception of visual stimuli by free-flying honeybees has been shown to vary dramatically depending on the way insects are trained. Fine color discrimination is achieved when both a target and a distractor are present during training (differential conditioning), whilst if the same target is learnt in isolation (absolute conditioning), discrimination is coarse and limited to perceptually dissimilar alternatives. Another way to potentially enhance discrimination is to increase the penalty associated with the distractor. Here we studied whether coupling the distractor with a highly concentrated quinine solution improves color discrimination of both similar and dissimilar colors by free-flying honeybees. As we assumed that quinine acts as an aversive stimulus, we analyzed whether aversion, if any, is based on an aversive sensory input at the gustatory level or on a post-ingestional malaise following quinine feeding.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe show that the presence of a highly concentrated quinine solution (60 mM) acts as an aversive reinforcer promoting rejection of the target associated with it, and improving discrimination of perceptually similar stimuli but not of dissimilar stimuli. Free-flying bees did not use remote cues to detect the presence of quinine solution; the aversive effect exerted by this substance was mediated via a gustatory input, i.e. via a distasteful sensory experience, rather than via a post-ingestional malaise.ConclusionThe present study supports the hypothesis that aversion conditioning is important for understanding how and what animals perceive and learn. By using this form of conditioning coupled with appetitive conditioning in the framework of a differential conditioning procedure, it is possible to uncover discrimination capabilities that may remain otherwise unsuspected. We show, therefore, that visual discrimination is not an absolute phenomenon but can be modulated by experience.

Use of an innovative T-tube maze assay and the proboscis extension response assay to assess sublethal effects of GM products and pesticides on learning capacity of the honey bee Apis mellifera L.

Transgenic Cry1Ac+CpTI cotton (CCRI41) is a promising cotton cultivar throughout China but side effects and especially sublethal effects of this transgenic cultivar on beneficial insects remain poorly studied. More specifically potential sublethal effects on behavioural traits of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. have not been formally assessed despite the importance of honey bees for pollination. The goal of our study was to assess potential effects of CCRI41 cotton pollen on visual and olfactory learning by honey bees. After a 7-day oral chronic exposure to honey mixed with either CCRI41 pollen, imidacloprid-treated conventional pollen (used as positive sublethal control) or conventional pollen (control), learning performance was evaluated by the classical proboscis extension reflex (PER) procedure as well as a T-tube maze test. The latter assay was designed as a new device to assess potential side effects of pesticides on visual associative learning of honey bees. These two procedures were complementary because the former focused on olfactory learning while the latter was involved in visual learning based on visual orientation ability. Oral exposure to CCRI41 pollen did not affect learning capacities of honey bees in both the T-tube maze and PER tests. However, exposure to imidacloprid resulted in reduced visual learning capacities in T-tube maze evaluation and decreased olfactory learning performances measured with PER. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of risks of transgenic CCRI41 cotton crops for honey bees.

Enhanced cholinergic transmission promotes recall in honeybees

The involvement of the cholinergic system in learning and memory in honeybees has been well established using olfactory conditioning. We examined the effect of Methyl Parathion (MeP), an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor of the organo-phosphate family, on the learning and recall of visual and olfactory discrimination tasks in honeybees. One of our expectations was to observe the effects induced by both the nicotinic and muscarinic systems, as the blocking of acetylcholinesterase should induce an increase in the activity of both systems. We were also interested in knowing whether the type of tasks could influence the results. The visual tasks involved learning to discriminate the orientation of gratings in a Y-maze; the olfactory task involved learning to discriminate odours in a proboscis extension reflex (PER) paradigm. The results indicate that MeP treatment enhances recall of learned tasks in the visual and olfactory domains, but it does not affect the acquisition phase in either domain. Surprisingly, MeP treatment led to muscarinic-like effects but failed to mimic the nicotinic-like effects already described in relation to learning phases in honeybees. Implications for the role of cholinergic pathways in learning and memory and the nature of their involvement are discussed, and a hypothesis relating to the organisation of the cholinergic system and the relationship between the nicotinic and muscarinic systems in honeybees is proposed. The results are also discussed in terms of their ecotoxicological consequences.

Honeybees Learn Odour Mixtures via a Selection of Key Odorants

BackgroundThe honeybee has to detect, process and learn numerous complex odours from her natural environment on a daily basis. Most of these odours are floral scents, which are mixtures of dozens of different odorants. To date, it is still unclear how the bee brain unravels the complex information contained in scent mixtures.Methodology/Principal FindingsThis study investigates learning of complex odour mixtures in honeybees using a simple olfactory conditioning procedure, the Proboscis-Extension-Reflex (PER) paradigm. Restrained honeybees were trained to three scent mixtures composed of 14 floral odorants each, and then tested with the individual odorants of each mixture. Bees did not respond to all odorants of a mixture equally: They responded well to a selection of key odorants, which were unique for each of the three scent mixtures. Bees showed less or very little response to the other odorants of the mixtures. The bees' response to mixtures composed of only the key odorants was as good as to the original mixtures of 14 odorants. A mixture composed of the other, non-key-odorants elicited a significantly lower response. Neither an odorant's volatility or molecular structure, nor learning efficiencies for individual odorants affected whether an odorant became a key odorant for a particular mixture. Odorant concentration had a positive effect, with odorants at high concentration likely to become key odorants.Conclusions/SignificanceOur study suggests that the brain processes complex scent mixtures by predominantly learning information from selected key odorants. Our observations on key odorant learning lend significant support to previous work on olfactory learning and mixture processing in honeybees.

Brain composition and olfactory learning in honey bees

Correlations between brain or brain component size and behavioral measures are frequently studied by comparing different animal species, which sometimes introduces variables that complicate interpretation in terms of brain function. Here, we have analyzed the brain composition of honey bees ( Apis mellifera) that have been individually tested in an olfactory learning paradigm. We found that the total brain size correlated with the bees’ learning performance. Among different brain components, only the mushroom body, a structure known to be involved in learning and memory, showed a positive correlation with learning performance. In contrast, visual neuropils were relatively smaller in bees that performed better in the olfactory learning task, suggesting modality-specific behavioral specialization of individual bees. This idea is also supported by inter-individual differences in brain composition. Some slight yet statistically significant differences in the brain composition of European and Africanized honey bees are reported. Larger bees had larger brains, and by comparing brains of different sizes, we report isometric correlations for all brain components except for a small structure, the central body.

Roles of Aminergic Neurons in Formation and Recall of Associative Memory in Crickets

We review recent progress in the study of roles of octopaminergic (OA-ergic) and dopaminergic (DA-ergic) signaling in insect classical conditioning, focusing on our studies on crickets. Studies on olfactory learning in honey bees and fruit-flies have suggested that OA-ergic and DA-ergic neurons convey reinforcing signals of appetitive unconditioned stimulus (US) and aversive US, respectively. Our work suggested that this is applicable to olfactory, visual pattern, and color learning in crickets, indicating that this feature is ubiquitous in learning of various sensory stimuli. We also showed that aversive memory decayed much faster than did appetitive memory, and we proposed that this feature is common in insects and humans. Our study also suggested that activation of OA- or DA-ergic neurons is needed for appetitive or aversive memory recall, respectively. To account for this finding, we proposed a model in which it is assumed that two types of synaptic connections are strengthened by conditioning and are activated during memory recall, one type being connections from neurons representing conditioned stimulus (CS) to neurons inducing conditioned response and the other being connections from neurons representing CS to OA- or DA-ergic neurons representing appetitive or aversive US, respectively. The former is called stimulus–response (S–R) connection and the latter is called stimulus–stimulus (S–S) connection by theorists studying classical conditioning in vertebrates. Results of our studies using a second-order conditioning procedure supported our model. We propose that insect classical conditioning involves the formation of S–S connection and its activation for memory recall, which are often called cognitive processes.

Searching for learning-dependent changes in the antennal lobe: simultaneous recording of neural activity and aversive olfactory learning in honeybees

Plasticity in the honeybee brain has been studied using the appetitive olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex, in which a bee learns the association between an odor and a sucrose reward. In this framework, coupling behavioral measurements of proboscis extension and invasive recordings of neural activity has been difficult because proboscis movements usually introduce brain movements that affect physiological preparations. Here we took advantage of a new conditioning protocol, the aversive olfactory conditioning of the sting extension reflex, which does not generate this problem. We achieved the first simultaneous recordings of conditioned sting extension responses and calcium imaging of antennal lobe activity, thus revealing on-line processing of olfactory information during conditioning trials. Based on behavioral output we distinguished learners and non-learners and analyzed possible learning-dependent changes in antennal lobe activity. We did not find differences between glomerular responses to the CS+ and the CS− in learners. Unexpectedly, we found that during conditioning trials non-learners exhibited a progressive decrease in physiological responses to odors, irrespective of their valence. This effect could neither be attributed to a fitness problem nor to abnormal dye bleaching. We discuss the absence of learning-induced changes in the antennal lobe of learners and the decrease in calcium responses found in non-learners. Further studies will have to extend the search for functional plasticity related to aversive learning to other brain areas and to look on a broader range of temporal scales.

Multiple reversal olfactory learning in honeybees

In multiple reversal learning, animals trained to discriminate a reinforced from a non-reinforced stimulus are subjected to various, successive reversals of stimulus contingencies (e.g. A+ vs. B−, A− vs. B+, A+ vs. B−). This protocol is useful to determine whether or not animals “learn to learn” and solve successive discriminations faster (or with fewer errors) with increasing reversal experience. Here we used the olfactory conditioning of proboscis extension reflex to study how honeybees Apis mellifera perform in a multiple reversal task. Our experiment contemplated four consecutive differential conditioning phases involving the same odors (A+ vs. B− to A− vs. B+ to A+ vs. B− to A− vs. B+). We show that bees in which the weight of reinforced or non-reinforced stimuli was similar mastered the multiple olfactory reversals. Bees which failed the task exhibited asymmetric responses to reinforced and non-reinforced stimuli, thus being unable to rapidly reverse stimulus contingencies. Efficient reversers did not improve their successive discriminations but rather tended to generalize their choice to both odors at the end of conditioning. As a consequence, both discrimination and reversal efficiency decreased along experimental phases. This result invalidates a learning-to-learn effect and indicates that bees do not only respond to the actual stimulus contingencies but rather combine these with an average of past experiences with the same stimuli.

Glutamatergic and GABAergic effects of fipronil on olfactory learning and memory in the honeybee

We investigated here the role of transmissions mediated by GABA and glutamate-gated chloride channels (GluCls) in olfactory learning and memory in honeybees, both of these channels being a target for fipronil. To do so, we combined olfactory conditioning with injections of either the GABA- and glutamate-interfering fipronil alone, or in combination with the blocker of glutamate transporter L-trans-Pyrrolidine-2,4-Dicarboxylicacid (L-trans-PDC), or the GABA analog Trans-4-Aminocrotonic Acid (TACA). Our results show that a low dose of fipronil (0.1 ng/bee) impaired olfactory memory, while a higher dose (0.5 ng/bee) had no effect. The detrimental effect induced by the low dose of fipronil was rescued by the coinjection of L-trans-PDC but was rather increased by the coinjection of TACA. Moreover, using whole-cell patch-clamp recordings, we observed that L-trans-PDC reduced glutamate-induced chloride currents in antennal lobe cells. We interpret these results as reflecting the involvement of both GluCl and GABA receptors in the impairment of olfactory memory induced by fipronil.

Effects of patriline on gustatory responsiveness and olfactory learning in honey bees

Associative proboscis extension learning differs widely among bees of a colony. This variety of performances is often related to differences in sucrose responsiveness, which determines learning performance. Sucrose responsiveness is partly determined genetically. We studied for the first time effects of paternal genes on associative learning independent of sucrose responsiveness. To do this, we used wild-type workers stemming from five unrelated patrilines. Bees of the patrilines were first tested for sucrose responsiveness. Only bees with equal sucrose responsiveness were analysed for associative olfactory learning, memory and discrimination. The bees of different patrilines did not differ in their acquisition, memory or discrimination of odours when they had similar sucrose responsiveness. But patrilines differed significantly in their sucrose responsiveness. This shows genetic effects on sensory responsiveness but no independent effects on associative learning.

Side-specific reward memories in honeybees

We report a hitherto unknown form of side-specific learning in honeybees. We trained bees individually by coupling gustatory and mechanical stimulation of each antenna with either increasing or decreasing volumes of sucrose solution offered to the animal's proboscis along successive learning trials. Next, we examined their proboscis extension response (PER) after stimulation of each antenna 1, 2, 3, and 24 h after training. The bees extended their proboscises earlier after stimulation of the antenna that had been coupled with increasing volumes than after stimulation of the antenna that had been coupled with decreasing volumes, thereby revealing short- and long-term side differences in the bees' PE reaction time. The bees' reaction time correlated well with the reaction time of the muscles M17. Long-term side differences in reaction time were prevented by repetitive antennal stimulation. Mechanosensory input was indispensable and sufficient for revealing side differences in reaction time. Such differences were specific to the gustatory input that the bees experienced during training. Our results show that side differences in the bees' PE reaction time depend upon the activation of side-specific reward memories. These memories are formed via the combined effect of a specific property of reward, i.e., that its magnitude increases or decreases over time, and side information seemingly relying on mechanosensory input. We present a learning procedure suitable to study reward learning in honeybees, which includes precise behavioral measures, physiological correlates of behavior, and within-animal controls. This procedure will prove fruitful in pharmacological and electrophysiological analyses of the neural substrates underlying reward memories in honeybees.

Volatile exposure within the honeybee hive and its effect on olfactory discrimination

Honeybees of different ages and reproductive castes cohabit in the hive where they are exposed to many odors that might affect associative learning. Our aim was to analyze the role of odors pre-exposed as volatiles on appetitive learning in honeybees of different ages and search for their long-term effect both under natural and laboratory conditions. By evaluating memory acquisition and retention through a differential proboscis extension response conditioning, we found that hive-exposed odors offered as a reinforced conditioned stimulus during training promoted a learning-reduced effect [latent inhibition (LI)]. On the other hand, no effect was found when the non-reinforced conditioned stimulus was pre-exposed. The LI effect varied with the odor identity. However, only slight differences were found with the age of the bees. Exposure-conditioning intervals longer than 24 h did not show an LI effect unless the odor concentration was increased or exposure was prolonged. Our results show that pre-exposed volatiles could either reduce learning performance, if this odor is later associated with food, or be irrelevant in the case that alternative scented resources circulate within the colony. The differential effects found according to the olfactory exposure characteristics could strongly influence the propagation of chemosensory information within the hive.