Smelling, tasting, learning: Drosophila as a study case

B. Gerber, R. F. Stocker, T. Tanimura, A. S. Thum

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Understanding brain function is to account for how the sensory system is integrated with the organism's needs to organize behaviour. We review what is known about these processes with regard to chemosensation and chemosensory learning in Drosophila. We stress that taste and olfaction are organized rather differently. Given that, e.g., sugars are nutrients and should be eaten (irrespective of the kind of sugar) and that toxic substances should be avoided (regardless of the kind of death they eventually cause), tastants are classified into relatively few behavioural matters of concern. In contrast, what needs to be done in response to odours is less evolutionarily determined. Thus, discrimination ability is warranted between different kinds of olfactory input, as any difference between odours may potentially be or become important. Therefore, the olfactory system has a higher dimensionality than gustation, and allows for more sensory-motor flexibility to attach acquired behavioural "meaning" to odours. We argue that, by and large, larval and adult Drosophila are similar in these kinds of architecture, and that additionally there are a number of similarities to vertebrates, in particular regarding the cellular architecture of the olfactory pathway, the functional slant of the taste and smell systems towards classification versus discrimination, respectively, and the higher plasticity of the olfactory sensory-motor system. From our point of view, the greatest gap in understanding smell and taste systems to date is not on the sensory side, where indeed impressive advances have been achieved; also, a satisfying account of associative odour-taste memory trace formation seems within reach. Rather, we lack an understanding as to how sensory and motor formats of processing are centrally integrated, and how adaptive motor patterns actually are selected. Such an understanding, we believe, will allow the analysis to be extended to the motivating factors of behaviour, eventually leading to a comprehensive account of those systems which make Drosophila do what Drosophila 's got to do.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationChemosensory Systems in Mammals, Fishes, and Insects
PublisherSpringer Verlag
Pages139-185
Number of pages47
ISBN (Print)9783540699187
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2009

Publication series

NameResults and Problems in Cell Differentiation
Volume47
ISSN (Print)0080-1844
ISSN (Electronic)1861-0412

Fingerprint

Drosophila
Learning
Smell
Olfactory Pathways
Aptitude
Poisons
Vertebrates
Cause of Death
Food
Odorants
Brain
Discrimination (Psychology)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Developmental Biology
  • Cell Biology

Cite this

Gerber, B., Stocker, R. F., Tanimura, T., & Thum, A. S. (2009). Smelling, tasting, learning: Drosophila as a study case. In Chemosensory Systems in Mammals, Fishes, and Insects (pp. 139-185). (Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation; Vol. 47). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/400_2008_9

Smelling, tasting, learning : Drosophila as a study case. / Gerber, B.; Stocker, R. F.; Tanimura, T.; Thum, A. S.

Chemosensory Systems in Mammals, Fishes, and Insects. Springer Verlag, 2009. p. 139-185 (Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation; Vol. 47).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Gerber, B, Stocker, RF, Tanimura, T & Thum, AS 2009, Smelling, tasting, learning: Drosophila as a study case. in Chemosensory Systems in Mammals, Fishes, and Insects. Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation, vol. 47, Springer Verlag, pp. 139-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/400_2008_9
Gerber B, Stocker RF, Tanimura T, Thum AS. Smelling, tasting, learning: Drosophila as a study case. In Chemosensory Systems in Mammals, Fishes, and Insects. Springer Verlag. 2009. p. 139-185. (Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation). https://doi.org/10.1007/400_2008_9
Gerber, B. ; Stocker, R. F. ; Tanimura, T. ; Thum, A. S. / Smelling, tasting, learning : Drosophila as a study case. Chemosensory Systems in Mammals, Fishes, and Insects. Springer Verlag, 2009. pp. 139-185 (Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation).
@inbook{552cbadbd4be4965a8b3d43326dbaec9,
title = "Smelling, tasting, learning: Drosophila as a study case",
abstract = "Understanding brain function is to account for how the sensory system is integrated with the organism's needs to organize behaviour. We review what is known about these processes with regard to chemosensation and chemosensory learning in Drosophila. We stress that taste and olfaction are organized rather differently. Given that, e.g., sugars are nutrients and should be eaten (irrespective of the kind of sugar) and that toxic substances should be avoided (regardless of the kind of death they eventually cause), tastants are classified into relatively few behavioural matters of concern. In contrast, what needs to be done in response to odours is less evolutionarily determined. Thus, discrimination ability is warranted between different kinds of olfactory input, as any difference between odours may potentially be or become important. Therefore, the olfactory system has a higher dimensionality than gustation, and allows for more sensory-motor flexibility to attach acquired behavioural {"}meaning{"} to odours. We argue that, by and large, larval and adult Drosophila are similar in these kinds of architecture, and that additionally there are a number of similarities to vertebrates, in particular regarding the cellular architecture of the olfactory pathway, the functional slant of the taste and smell systems towards classification versus discrimination, respectively, and the higher plasticity of the olfactory sensory-motor system. From our point of view, the greatest gap in understanding smell and taste systems to date is not on the sensory side, where indeed impressive advances have been achieved; also, a satisfying account of associative odour-taste memory trace formation seems within reach. Rather, we lack an understanding as to how sensory and motor formats of processing are centrally integrated, and how adaptive motor patterns actually are selected. Such an understanding, we believe, will allow the analysis to be extended to the motivating factors of behaviour, eventually leading to a comprehensive account of those systems which make Drosophila do what Drosophila 's got to do.",
author = "B. Gerber and Stocker, {R. F.} and T. Tanimura and Thum, {A. S.}",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/400_2008_9",
language = "English",
isbn = "9783540699187",
series = "Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
pages = "139--185",
booktitle = "Chemosensory Systems in Mammals, Fishes, and Insects",
address = "Germany",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Smelling, tasting, learning

T2 - Drosophila as a study case

AU - Gerber, B.

AU - Stocker, R. F.

AU - Tanimura, T.

AU - Thum, A. S.

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Understanding brain function is to account for how the sensory system is integrated with the organism's needs to organize behaviour. We review what is known about these processes with regard to chemosensation and chemosensory learning in Drosophila. We stress that taste and olfaction are organized rather differently. Given that, e.g., sugars are nutrients and should be eaten (irrespective of the kind of sugar) and that toxic substances should be avoided (regardless of the kind of death they eventually cause), tastants are classified into relatively few behavioural matters of concern. In contrast, what needs to be done in response to odours is less evolutionarily determined. Thus, discrimination ability is warranted between different kinds of olfactory input, as any difference between odours may potentially be or become important. Therefore, the olfactory system has a higher dimensionality than gustation, and allows for more sensory-motor flexibility to attach acquired behavioural "meaning" to odours. We argue that, by and large, larval and adult Drosophila are similar in these kinds of architecture, and that additionally there are a number of similarities to vertebrates, in particular regarding the cellular architecture of the olfactory pathway, the functional slant of the taste and smell systems towards classification versus discrimination, respectively, and the higher plasticity of the olfactory sensory-motor system. From our point of view, the greatest gap in understanding smell and taste systems to date is not on the sensory side, where indeed impressive advances have been achieved; also, a satisfying account of associative odour-taste memory trace formation seems within reach. Rather, we lack an understanding as to how sensory and motor formats of processing are centrally integrated, and how adaptive motor patterns actually are selected. Such an understanding, we believe, will allow the analysis to be extended to the motivating factors of behaviour, eventually leading to a comprehensive account of those systems which make Drosophila do what Drosophila 's got to do.

AB - Understanding brain function is to account for how the sensory system is integrated with the organism's needs to organize behaviour. We review what is known about these processes with regard to chemosensation and chemosensory learning in Drosophila. We stress that taste and olfaction are organized rather differently. Given that, e.g., sugars are nutrients and should be eaten (irrespective of the kind of sugar) and that toxic substances should be avoided (regardless of the kind of death they eventually cause), tastants are classified into relatively few behavioural matters of concern. In contrast, what needs to be done in response to odours is less evolutionarily determined. Thus, discrimination ability is warranted between different kinds of olfactory input, as any difference between odours may potentially be or become important. Therefore, the olfactory system has a higher dimensionality than gustation, and allows for more sensory-motor flexibility to attach acquired behavioural "meaning" to odours. We argue that, by and large, larval and adult Drosophila are similar in these kinds of architecture, and that additionally there are a number of similarities to vertebrates, in particular regarding the cellular architecture of the olfactory pathway, the functional slant of the taste and smell systems towards classification versus discrimination, respectively, and the higher plasticity of the olfactory sensory-motor system. From our point of view, the greatest gap in understanding smell and taste systems to date is not on the sensory side, where indeed impressive advances have been achieved; also, a satisfying account of associative odour-taste memory trace formation seems within reach. Rather, we lack an understanding as to how sensory and motor formats of processing are centrally integrated, and how adaptive motor patterns actually are selected. Such an understanding, we believe, will allow the analysis to be extended to the motivating factors of behaviour, eventually leading to a comprehensive account of those systems which make Drosophila do what Drosophila 's got to do.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=65449164939&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=65449164939&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/400_2008_9

DO - 10.1007/400_2008_9

M3 - Chapter

C2 - 19145411

AN - SCOPUS:65449164939

SN - 9783540699187

T3 - Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation

SP - 139

EP - 185

BT - Chemosensory Systems in Mammals, Fishes, and Insects

PB - Springer Verlag

ER -