MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323041580 · doi:10.1242/jeb.244996

Dopamine modulates odour learning in mosquitoes

2023· article· en· W4323041580 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Murillo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAedes aegyptiZoologyAttractionAedesAnophelesAnopheles stephensiMosquito controlEcologyHost (biology)MalariaLarva

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research→French-language works237,207→