Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov 3:9:e59853.
doi: 10.7554/eLife.59853.

Alcohol potentiates a pheromone signal in flies

Affiliations

Alcohol potentiates a pheromone signal in flies

Annie Park et al. Elife. .

Abstract

For decades, numerous researchers have documented the presence of the fruit fly or Drosophila melanogaster on alcohol-containing food sources. Although fruit flies are a common laboratory model organism of choice, there is relatively little understood about the ethological relationship between flies and ethanol. In this study, we find that when male flies inhabit ethanol-containing food substrates they become more aggressive. We identify a possible mechanism for this behavior. The odor of ethanol potentiates the activity of sensory neurons in response to an aggression-promoting pheromone. Finally, we observed that the odor of ethanol also promotes attraction to a food-related citrus odor. Understanding how flies interact with the complex natural environment they inhabit can provide valuable insight into how different natural stimuli are integrated to promote fundamental behaviors.

Keywords: D. melanogaster; cis-vaccenyl acetate; complex environment; neuroscience; odor mixture; or67d; social behavior.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

AP, TT, ES, DS, NA No competing interests declared

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Alcohol odor increases aggression in male flies.
(a) Traces of T1 sensilla recordings with a 300 ms exposure to air or vapor from 30% ethanol. (b) Hemolymph ethanol concentration (mg/mL) in flies in aggression arenas for 30 mins show no significant increases except with 20% ethanol (one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s p<0.0001, n = 11–12). (c) Time spent fighting on ethanol-containing food (Control vs. 5% p=0.038 Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s correction, n = 10–20). (d) Number of fights on ethanol-containing food (Control vs. 5% p=0.0012, statistical tests as in c). (e) Lunges on ethanol-containing food (Control vs. 5% p=0.0225, statistical tests as in c). (f) Latency to lunge (p=0.009, Log-rank Mantel-Cox with Bonferroni correction). (g) Cumulative latency of flies that lunged during the test (Control vs. 10% p=0.009, Log-rank Mantel-Cox with Bonferroni correction). (h) Locomotion as measured by line crossings during the test (Control vs. 20% p=0.0048, statistical tests as in 1 c). p<0.05 *; p<0.01 **; p<0.001 ***. Error bars denote SEM.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Alcohol odor potentiates the response to cVa.
(a) Experimental timeline and diagram of recording site on fly antenna. (b) Traces of cVa-sensing T1 neurons. The red bar denotes 300 ms cVa exposure. (c) Δ Spikes calculated as cVa-induced activity (1 s during and after cVa) – spontaneous activity (paired two-tailed t-test, p=0.002, n = 7,15,15). (d) Spontaneous activity before, during, and after ethanol exposure. Spontaneous activity calculated as the total number of spikes 10 s prior to cVa delivery/10 s (Pre- vs. Post-5% p=0.002, Pre- vs. Post-30% p<0.0001, During vs. Post-30% p=0.0152, Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s correction). (e), (f), (g) Averaged spikes over time for air, 5% ethanol, and 30% ethanol, respectively. Red bar denotes 300 ms cVa exposure (h) Time constant (τ) of decay of the cVa-induced spikes (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.0043). p>0.05, n.s. (not significant); p<0.05 *; p<0.01 **; p<0.0001 ****. Error bars denote SEM.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Ethanol increases attraction to and potentiates the neuronal response of a food related odor.
(a) Paradigm used to evaluate farnesol responses pre- and post-ethanol treatment. Responses are shown in panels b-e. (b) Δ Spikes of farnesol-induced activity in ai2 sensilla, calculated as in 2b (paired two-tailed t-test, p=0.0059, n = 9–10). (c) Spontaneous activity before, during, and after ethanol exposure, calculated as in 2 c (Pre- vs. During Ethanol p=0.017, Pre- vs. Post-Ethanol p<0.0001, Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s correction). (d, e) Traces from ai2 farnesol-sensing neurons. The red bar denotes a 300 ms farnesol exposure. (f) Graphic of the two-choice olfactory trap assay used to measure relative attraction to odors. (g) Preference Indices calculated as Number of flies in Choice 1-Number of flies in Choice 2/Total Number of flies. p>0.05, n.s. (not significant); p<0.05 *; p<0.01 **; p<0.0001 ****. Error bars denote SEM.
Author response image 1.
Author response image 1.
Author response image 2.
Author response image 2.

References

    1. Asahina K, Watanabe K, Duistermars BJ, Hoopfer E, González CR, Eyjólfsdóttir EA, Perona P, Anderson DJ. Tachykinin-expressing neurons control male-specific aggressive arousal in Drosophila. Cell. 2014;156:221–235. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.11.045. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Azanchi R, Kaun KR, Heberlein U. Competing dopamine neurons drive oviposition choice for ethanol in Drosophila. PNAS. 2013;110:21153–21158. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320208110. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen S, Lee AY, Bowens NM, Huber R, Kravitz EA. Fighting fruit flies: a model system for the study of aggression. PNAS. 2002;99:5664–5668. doi: 10.1073/pnas.082102599. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Bruyne M, Clyne PJ, Carlson JR. Odor coding in a model olfactory organ: the Drosophila maxillary palp. The Journal of Neuroscience. 1999;19:4520–4532. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-11-04520.1999. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dow MA, von Schilcher F. Aggression and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature. 1975;254:511–512. doi: 10.1038/254511a0. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources