MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4323041580 · doi:10.1242/jeb.244996

Dopamine modulates odour learning in mosquitoes

2023· article· en· W4323041580 sur OpenAlexaff
Andrea Murillo

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBiologyAedes aegyptiZoologyAttractionAedesAnophelesAnopheles stephensiMosquito controlEcologyHost (biology)MalariaLarva

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Researchers have long been fascinated with figuring out how mosquitoes choose a host to feed on and how they can change their preferences. One important missing piece of the puzzle may be the way that mosquitoes learn different smells. Gabriella Wolff and colleagues from the University of Washington, USA, had previously found that yellow fever mosquitoes could form memories associated with odours related to their favourite food – blood – but not with odours that had nothing to do with their life history. These mosquitoes could be trained to avoid those odours by associating them with swatting. However, it was still unknown whether other mosquito species could learn to avoid the same odours and whether dopamine, a chemical messenger important for learning, could be responsible for this olfactory learning. To figure this out, the team set out to train four different species of mosquitoes.Wolff and colleagues exposed the mosquitoes to the scents of human skin, chicken feathers and rose oil. Two of the mosquito species feed on humans [the yellow fever mosquito (Aedes aegypti) and the Asian malaria mosquito (Anopheles stephensi)], another, the southern house mosquito (Culex quinquefasciatus), feeds on birds, and the elephant mosquito (Toxorhynchites amboinensis) dines on flowers. The team found that all the mosquito species had the strongest attraction to the scent of the hosts that they preferred to feed on.To test whether multiple mosquito species could learn to recognize the same odours, the team trained female mosquitoes from each species to avoid different scents by exposing them to scent components from human odours (octenol and hexanoic acid) or a flower scent component (linalool), regardless of whether they naturally feed on humans or flowers, and then they mimicked swatting at the insects to make the scent unattractive. The team then investigated each mosquito’s preference by putting them into a maze that provided them with a choice between either a host odour (octenol, hexanoic acid or linalool) or no scent. The team found that the mosquitoes learned to avoid the odours associated with their favourite food, but not other odours. For example, the yellow fever mosquito, which dines on people, learned to avoid octenol and hexanoic acid, but not linalool. Meanwhile, nectar-feeding elephant mosquitoes only learned to avoid linalool, but not octenol and hexanoic acid.To see whether these differences in species learning were due to the effects of dopamine, the researchers investigated where dopamine was localized in the brain of each of these species. Wolff and colleagues found that dopamine was localized in the antennal lobe and mushroom bodies – structures in the brain that are important for learning and memory. However, the dopamine was localized in different areas of these structures from species to species, which could be important for differences in their learning abilities. To see whether dopamine was necessary for this olfactory learning, the team also trained yellow fever mosquitoes and the Asian malaria mosquitoes, which feed on mammals, to avoid an odour associated with their preferred diets, and found that when they blocked the dopamine receptor, they eliminated their ability to learn to avoid the odour. Last, the team found that areas in the antennal lobe that had an increased response to these scents also had a raised level of dopamine.Learning the basis of how mosquitoes smell and the impact on their host preference is vital, as the insects can be responsible for the spread of some terrible diseases. The researchers highlight that being able to change dopamine inputs without having to change brain structure may give mosquitoes an evolutionary advantage and could be a way for mosquitoes to change their host preferences quickly.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,359
Écart entre enseignants0,294 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental Biology→Même sujetNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research→Travaux en français237 207→