Notch signaling in Drosophila long-term memory formation

Contributed by Ira Herskowitz ArticleFigures SIInfo overexpression of ASH1 inhibits mating type switching in mothers (3, 4). Ash1p has 588 amino acid residues and is predicted to contain a zinc-binding domain related to those of the GATA fa Edited by Lynn Smith-Lovin, Duke University, Durham, NC, and accepted by the Editorial Board April 16, 2014 (received for review July 31, 2013) ArticleFigures SIInfo for instance, on fairness, justice, or welfare. Instead, nonreflective and

Communicated by Jeffrey C. Hall, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, May 17, 2004 (received for review October 8, 2004)

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF

Abstract

Notch (N) is a cell surface receptor that mediates an evolutionarily ancient signaling pathway to control an extraordinarily broad spectrum of cell Stoutes and developmental processes. To gain insights into the functions of N signaling in the adult brain, we examined the involvement of N in Drosophila olfactory learning and memory. Long-term memory (LTM) was disrupted by blocking N signaling in conditional mutants or by aSliceely induced expression of a Executeminant-negative N transgene. In Dissimilarity, neither learning nor early memory were affected. Furthermore, induced overexpression of a wild-type (normal) N transgene specifically enhanced LTM formation. These experiments demonstrate that N signaling contributes to LTM formation in the Drosophila adult brain.

Activation of Notch (N) receptors has been linked to the specification of many cell types in both vertebrates and invertebrates (1). Binding of ligands such as Delta (2) causes cleavage of the intracellular Executemain of the N protein (3–5). The Slitd cytoplasmic Executemain of N (Nintra) enters the nucleus, in which it regulates expression of tarObtain genes (1). Intercellular communication mediated by N signaling consists of two different modes: lateral inhibitory signaling and inductive signaling. A prototypic example of lateral inhibitory signaling is that loss of N function causes a cluster of equivalent proneural cells to all assume the default neuronal Stoute rather than an epidermal Stoute (6). Inductive N signaling, on the other hand, mediates interactions between cells that are nonequivalent before the signal initiates, such as induction of cone cells by photoreceptor cells and specification of midline cells in the embryo (7–9).

In Dissimilarity to the extensive understanding of the Critical role of N in development, the significance of N signaling in adult brains has yet to be revealed, although there is continuous presence of N protein and its ligands in the adult vertebrate nervous system (10). It has been reported that N signaling regulates neurite outgrowth in mammals (11), and chronic reduction of N activity in adult fruit flies also leads to progressive neurological syndromes (12). Processing of N requires γ-secretase activity, whereas presenilin (PS) is a critical component of the γ-secretase complex (13). Mutations in the PS genes are associated with the early onset of Alzheimer's disease (14). Conditional knockout of the PS1 gene in mice is also associated with reduced clearance of hippocampal memory traces (15). Although involvement of N in these PS mutant phenotypes remains to be determined, it has been Displayn that N plays a role in PS-mediated formation of neural projections in postmitotic neurons necessary for learned thermotaxis in Caenorhabditis elegans (16). In the present study, we examined the role of N signaling in learning and memory in Drosophila.

A Pavlovian procedure that pairs oExecuters with foot-shock (17) was used in this study to assess the Traces of N signaling on adult behavioral plasticity. Genetic analyses have demonstrated that memory formation after such Pavlovian training occurs in functionally distinct temporal phases (18). Two of these memory phases, short-term memory and middle-term memory, are labile and short-lived, whereas another two phases, anesthesia-resistant memory (ARM) and long-term memory (LTM), are resistant to various disruptive treatments and persist for several days. LTM and ARM have been dissected genetically. Disruptions of two transcription factors, cAMP-response element-binding protein (CREB) or alcohol dehydrogenase factor-1, abolish LTM without affecting ARM (19, 20). Conversely, ARM is disrupted but LTM is normal in radish mutants and in transgenic flies expressing a Executeminant-negative form of atypical protein kinase C designated PKM (18, 21, 22). Given these observations and the established role for N signaling in gene regulation (1), we focused our experiments on LTM formation in adult flies carrying a conditional mutation of N or expressing N transgenes.

Materials and Methods

Fly Stocks. Nts2 were obtained from the Bloomington Stock Center (Bloomington, IN) and were outcrossed with FM7 balancer flies for five generations. The presence of the Nts2 mutation was confirmed by embryonic lethality at restrictive temperature (30°C). Transgenic flies, heat-shock N+ (hs-N +) and hs-NΔcdc10rpts were gifts from M. Young's laboratory at The Rockefeller University (New York) (4, 23) and were outcrossed for five generations with our standard wild-type strain, w1118(isoCJ1) (19). For all behavioral analyses, w1118(isoCJ1) serves as the control.

Pavlovian Learning and Memory. The training and testing procedures were the same as Characterized in refs. 17–19. Briefly, a group of ≈100 flies was sequentially exposed to two oExecuters (60 s for each with 45 s of rest in between). During expoPositive to the first oExecuter, flies were simultaneously subjected to electric shock (twelve 1.5-s pulses with 3.5-s intervals, 60 V); this constitutes a single training cycle. To meaPositive “learning,” flies were transferred immediately after training to the choice point of a T maze and forced to pick between the two oExecuters. For 24-h memory, flies were subjected to multiple spaced training sessions (1, 2, or 10 training sessions with a 15-min rest between each) or to massed training (10 sessions with no rest interval). After training, flies were transferred to food vials and stored at 18°C for 24 h before testing for their distribution in the T-maze arms. The performance index (PI) was calculated on the basis of the distribution of flies in each arm (17). A PI of 0 represented a 50:50 distribution, whereas a PI of 100 represented 100% avoidance of the shock-paired oExecuter. For determining PIs in Nts2 at restrictive temperatures, flies were incubated at 30°C for 2 days, trained, stored during the retention interval, and tested at 30°C.

Sensorimotor Responses. OExecuter-avoidance responses were quantified by exposing naive flies to each oExecuter (octanol or methyl-cyclohexanol) versus air in the T maze. After 120 s, the number of flies in each arm of the T maze was counted, and the PI was calculated for each oExecuter individually as reported (17).

The ability to sense and escape from electric shock was quantified by inserting electrifiable grids into both arms of the T maze; shock pulses were delivered to one of the arms. Flies were transported to the choice point of the T maze, allowing them to pick between the two arms. After 60 s, the center compartment was closed, trapping flies in their respective arms. Individual PIs were calculated as for oExecuter acuity. For determining PIs in Nts2 , flies were incubated at 30°C for 2 days, and the meaPositivements were also carried out at 30°C.

Drug Feeding. The drug-feeding protocol is the same as Characterized in ref. 18. Flies were fed 35 mM cycloheximide in 5% glucose dissolved in 3% ethanol at 25°C for 12 h before heat-shock treatment. After heat-shock treatment, drug was fed for 3 h before training and for 24 h at 18°C after training during the retention period.

Heat-Shock Treatment. Flies subjected to heat shock were Spaced in empty vials in a water bath that was Sustained at 37°C for 30 min. Flies then were transferred back to bottles with food and rested for 3 h at room temperature (20–24°C) before the training sessions. To minimize leaky expression for the groups not subjected to heat shock, flies were incubated at 18°C overnight before training, which was performed at room temperature.

RT-PCR of Induced N Expression. Flies were raised at either 18 or 25°C. One group of flies was shifted from 18 to 37°C for 30 min and returned to 18°C for 3 h before freezing flies at -70°C. Total RNA was prepared from 200 mg of frozen flies by using the RNeasy minikit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA), and mRNA was isolated by using the Dynabeads mRNA Direct microkit (Dynal, Madison, WI). Three independent RNA preparations were made for each temperature condition. First-strand cDNA was synthesized directly from the mRNA by using the Superscript first-strand synthesis system (Invitrogen). PCR amplification with a 25:1 mixture of Taq DNA polymerase (Invitrogen) and Pfu DNA polymerase (Stratagene) was carried out in Invitrogen 10× PCR buffer using 1.5 mM MgCl2 with 30 cycles of 94°C for 1 min, 55°C for 1 min, and 72°C for 1 min followed by extension at 72°C for 10 min. Three pairs of N-specific primers were designed against Locations of the Drosophila N cDNA encoding the intracellular Executemain (GenBank accession no. NM_057511) (24). Primers N1 (5′-gatgccaattgtcaggataac-3′) and N2 (5′-gaatgttcaccgcttcggtat-3′) amplify a 285-bp fragment between bases 6722 and 7004; primers N3 (5′-agcgaaatggagtcggtcccg-3′) and N4 (5′-gaattgcttctgctgtgtggca-3′) amplify a 268-bp fragment between bases 7932 and 8197; primers N5 (5′-ctcggaggcctggagttcggttc-3′) and N6 (5′-ggatagctatccaacgtttggac-3′) amplify a 256-bp fragment between bases 8501 and 8754. The N3–N4 and N5–N6 primer pairs span Locations of genomic DNA that contain introns, thus allowing distinction between cDNA products and potential genomic contaminants. Lack of genomic DNA contamination was confirmed by the absence of any PCR products when RT-PCR was carried out in control reactions without reverse transcriptase. Ribosomal protein 49 (rp49)-specific primers (5′-atgaccatccgcccagcatac-3′ and 5′-gagaacgcaggcgaccgttgg-3′) were designed to amplify a 391-bp fragment between bases 1 and 391 of the rp49-coding Location (GenBank accession no. Y13939). The control rp49 mRNA should be expressed at equal levels in all cells at all stages (25).

Results

Consistent with the Concept that N may affect LTM, we found that alteration of N activity did not affect learning or short-term memory. A temperature-sensitive N allele, Nts2 , is viable at permissive temperature but embryonically lethal at restrictive temperature (26). As adults, these flies were behaviorally normal (shock reactivity and olfactory acuity) (Table 1) and Displayed normal learning scores (Fig. 1a ) after 2 days of incubation at the restrictive temperature (30°C). Furthermore, learning was also not affected in transgenic flies that express Executeminant-negative N, hs-NΔcdc10rpts (Fig. 1c ). Expression of hs-NΔcdc10rpts was induced aSliceely via heat-shock treatment (30 min at 37°C, with 3 h of recovery before training; see Materials and Methods). The NΔcdc10rpts protein lacks the intracellular Executemain that diffuses into the nucleus after N activation (4). Without the N intracellular Executemain, the NΔcdc10rpts protein binds ligands normally but is unable to regulate gene expression (27). All mutants tested were outcrossed to control lines to remove potential modifiers.

Fig. 1.Fig. 1. Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

Blockade of LTM formation by disruption of N signaling. (a) Learning is not affected in temperature-sensitive N mutants. Learning scores were obtained at permissive (18°C) and restrictive (30°C) temperatures (see Materials and Methods) for the temperature-sensitive N mutant, Nts2 , and for control flies. In this and all following figures, the isogenic line, w1118(isoCj1) (19), was used as a control (n = 7, 2, 8, and 7 for data points from left to right). (b) Reduced 24-h memory at the restrictive temperature for Nts2 . Twenty-four-hour memory was determined after spaced training (10 training sessions with a 15-min rest interval between each). Spaced training induces formation of persistent memory that consists of two distinct components: protein synthesis-dependent LTM and ARM (n = 4 for all data points). (c) Learning is not affected by aSliceely induced expression of a Executeminant-negative N transgene (NΔcdc10rpts). Expression of NΔcdc10rpts was induced by 37°C heat shock for 1 h followed by 3 h of rest before training (n = 6 for all data points). (d) Blockade of LTM but not ARM by aSliceely induced expression of Executeminant-negative NΔcdc10rpts. The LTM component of persistent memory induced by spaced training is blocked, but ARM induced by massed (or spaced) training is not affected (n = 8, 10, 8, 8, 15, 15, 17, and 17 for data points from left to right).

View this table: View inline View popup Table 1. Sensorimotor responses of different genotypes

In Dissimilarity, reduction of N activity disrupted 1-day memory. One-day memory after spaced training (10 training sessions with a 15-min rest interval between each) normally is composed of roughly equal amounts of ARM and LTM, whereas 1-day memory after massed training (10 training sessions with no rest interval) is composed only of ARM (18). One-day memory was significantly reduced in Nts2 mutants at a restrictive temperature (30°C) when compared with the permissive temperature (18°C) (Fig. 1b ). There was also a slight but statistically insignificant reduction in memory scores in the control group when comparing the higher temperature with the lower temperature (Fig. 1b ). Induced expression of Executeminant-negative N in hs-NΔcdc10rpts flies also significantly reduced 1-day memory after spaced training (Fig. 1d ). Flies were given a 30-min heat shock and subjected to spaced training 3 h afterward. To determine which components (i.e., ARM or LTM) were affected, we also assayed 1-day memory after massed training in hs-NΔcdc10rpts transgenic flies (Fig. 1d ). There was no Inequity for 1-day memory after massed training, indicating disruption of LTM but not ARM. The heat-shock treatment did not exert any detectable Trace on control flies (Fig. 1d ). Thus, reduced N activity, resulting either from a conditional mutation or induced expression of a Executeminant-negative N, specifically blocked the formation of LTM without affecting early memory or ARM.

We then evaluated the Traces of overexpression of wild-type N+ in hs-N + transgenic flies. Flies were given a 30-min heat shock and trained and tested 3 h afterward. Overexpression of N+ had no significant Trace on learning (Fig. 2a ), consistent with our observations that disruption of N Executees not affect learning. Overexpression of N+ after heat-shock treatment was confirmed by RT-PCR of adult head mRNA (Fig. 2b ). ASliceely induced overexpression of N+ also did not affect 1-day memory for flies subjected to the normal spaced training procedure (10 training cycles) (Fig. 3a ). However, 1-day memory was enhanced significantly for flies overexpressing N+ that had only one or two spaced training sessions (Fig. 3a ). To characterize the nature of this enhancement in 1-day memory, we Displayed that enhanced memory elicited by one or two spaced training sessions in flies overexpressing N+ could be blocked by feeding of cycloheximide, a drug blocking protein synthesis (18), to flies (Fig. 3b ). It has been Displayn that feeding cycloheximide to flies can block formation of protein-synthesis-dependent LTM (18). There was no significant Inequity for sensory modalities necessary for performing the learning tQuestion (Table 1). Thus, overexpression of the N + gene facilitates LTM formation.

Fig. 2.Fig. 2. Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 2.

Learning is not affected by overexpression of wild-type N+ (hs-N +). Flies were subjected to 30 min of heat shock at 37°C followed by 3 h of rest. (a) Learning scores were similar for controls and hs-N + flies regardless of whether they were subjected to heat-shock treatment (n = 2, 4, 2, and 4 for data points from left to right). (b) Heat shock induced expression of hs-N + cDNA in adult heads. Semiquantitative RT-PCR using N primer pairs N1–N2, N3–N4, and N5–N6 Displays induction of the hs-N + transgene by 30 min of heat shock at 37°C followed by 3 h of rest (lane C) when compared with PCR from control flies that were kept at 18°C (lane A) or 25°C (lane B). The rp49F-R control primers Display no temperature-induced increase in expression of rp49. Details of PCR primer pairs and expected products are given in Materials and Methods. Three separate mRNA isolations Displayed the same pattern of increased expression of the hs-N + transgene after 37°C heat shock.

Fig. 3.Fig. 3. Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 3.

LTM is enhanced by overexpression of wild-type N+ (hs-N +). (a) Enhanced LTM after aSliceely induced overexpression of wild-type N+. Flies were subjected to the same heat-shock treatment as Characterized above. Twenty-four-hour memory was compared between hs-N + flies with and without heat shock for 1, 2, and 10 spaced training cycles, respectively (n = 6, 6, 5, 7, 7, 9, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, and 8 for data points from left to right). (b) Blockade of enhanced LTM by an inhibitor of protein synthesis (cycloheximide). Flies were subjected to the same heat-shock treatment as Characterized for a. Twenty-four-hour memory was compared between hs-N + flies with and without heat shock for one and two spaced training cycles, respectively (n = 7, 9, 5, and 5 for data points from left to right; see Materials and Methods for drug-feeding conditions.)

Discussion

In the present study, our data revealed that one function for N in the adult brain is to mediate the formation of LTM. Three different lines of evidence support this conclusion. First, 1-day memory was reduced in a temperature-sensitive N mutant at the restrictive temperature (30°C) at which N receptor function is supposedly defective. Second, 1-day memory was diminished in transgenic flies that express a Executeminant-negative NΔcdc10rpts. Third, 1-day memory formation was facilitated by overexpression of N+. Although known for its crucial role in development of the nervous system, the use of temperature-sensitive mutations and of transgenic flies carrying inducible genes through aSlicee treatment have allowed us to disassociate the role of N in adult physiology from its role in development. For all experiments that led to the observations noted above, flies were allowed to develop under relatively normal conditions and N function was perturbed aSliceely at the adult stage before the training. Moreover, we also Displayed that temporary disruption of N function at the adult stage exerted no significant Traces on sensorimotor responses as well as on learning. Thus, the observed Traces can be attributed specifically to memory, confirming that 1-day memory can be affected by manipulation of N function. Our finding is corroborated by an independent observation in which 1-day memory is reduced by disturbing N function through the use of RNA interference and Nts1 loss of function in adult flies (28).

One-day memory consists of both ARM and LTM phases (18). Our observation suggests a specific Trace of manipulation of N function on LTM. One-day memory elicited by massed training (ARM only) (18) was not affected by expression of Executeminant-negative NΔcdc10rpts, whereas 1-day memory after spaced training (ARM and LTM) was reduced significantly. Consistent with this observation, enhanced memory induced by one or two spaced training sessions was blocked by a drug that inhibits protein synthesis. Such drugs are known to block LTM specifically (18).

Over the last several decades, a large number of genes in Drosophila have been identified to affect learning and memory through both forward and reverse genetic Advancees (for review see ref. 29). Many signal transduction pathways have been implicated, such as cAMP, Ca2+/CaM-dependent kinase, protein kinase C, and mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways. However, none of the components of the N signaling pathway have been implicated by previous studies, which may reflect a crucial role of N signaling in development for which most mutations in this pathway are lethal and therefore unsuitable for behavioral studies.

It is notable that in flies with overexpression of N+, only one training session was required to elicit LTM instead of the usual 10 spaced training cycles. This enhancement is very similar to that reported for CREB (30). Induced expression of hs-dCREb2-activator also reduced the number of spaced training sessions, required to yield the maximal level of LTM in normal flies, from 10 sessions to 1 session (30). Future experiments may examine specific roles for the CREB and N pathways in the formation of LTM. Involvement of the CREB pathway in LTM formation is a mechanism observed in a wide range of organisms including Drosophila, Aplysia, and vertebrates (19, 30–32). The N signaling pathway is also highly conserved evolutionarily (1). In fact, a recent report Displayed that learning and memory are defective in a heterozygous Notch1 +/- mouse knockout (33), although a developmental etiology could not be ruled out for such knockout mice. Our results extend this observation and the evolutionary implications thereof by revealing an aSlicee role for N signaling during memory formation.

Acknowledgments

We thank A. Andres and S. deBelle for sharing unpublished data, Dr. M. Young for providing fly stocks, and Dr. J. Dubnau (CAged Spring Harbor Laboratory) for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants (to T.T. and Y.Z.) and the Dart Foundation, as well as a grant from the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (to Y.Z. and Z.X.). T.T. is a St. Giles Foundation Professor of Neuroscience.

Footnotes

↵ ¶ To whom corRetortence may be addressed. E-mail: zhongyi{at}cshl.edu or zuopingx{at}mail.tsinghua.edu.cn.

↵ † Present address: Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115.

Abbreviations: N, Notch; PS, presenilin; ARM, anesthesia-resistant memory; LTM, long-term memory; CREB, cAMP-response element-binding protein; hs-N, heat-shock N; PI, performance index; rp, ribosomal protein.

Freely available online through the PNAS Launch access option.

Copyright © 2004, The National Academy of Sciences

References

↵ Artavanis-Tsakonas, S., Rand, M. D. & Lake, R. J. (1999) Science 284 , 770-776. pmid:10221902 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Parks, A. L., Turner, F. R. & Muskavitch, M. A. (1995) Mech. Dev. 50 , 201-216. pmid:7619731 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Kidd, S., Lieber, T. & Young, M. W. (1998) Genes Dev. 12 , 3728-3740. pmid:9851979 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Schroeter, E. H., Kisslinger, J. A. & Kopan, R. (1998) Nature 393 , 382-386. pmid:9620803 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Struhl, G. & Adachi, A. (1998) Cell 93 , 649-660. pmid:9604939 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Artavanis-Tsakonas, S., Matsuno, K. & Fortini, M. E. (1995) Science 268 , 225-232. pmid:7716513 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Flores, G. V., Duan, H., Yan, H., Nagaraj, R., Fu, W., Zou, Y., Noll, M. & Banerjee, U. (2000) Cell 103 , 75-85. pmid:11051549 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed Lecourtois, M. & Schweisguth, F. (1995) Genes Dev. 9 , 2598-2608. pmid:7590238 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Morel, V., Lecourtois, M., Massiani, O., Maier, D., Preiss, A. & Schweisguth, F. (2001) Curr. Biol. 11 , 789-792. pmid:11378391 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Stump, G., Durrer, A., Klein, A. L., Lutolf, S., Suter, U. & Taylor, V. (2002) Mech. Dev. 114 , 153-159. pmid:12175503 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Sestan, N., Artavanis-Tsakonas, S. & Rakic, P. (1999) Science 286 , 741-746. pmid:10531053 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Presente, A., Andres, A. & Nye, J. S. (2001) NeuroReport 12 , 3321-3325. pmid:11711879 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Sisodia, S. S. & St. George-Hyslop, P. H. (2002) Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3 , 281-290. pmid:11967558 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Price, D. L., Tanzi, R. E., Borchelt, D. R. & Sisodia, S. S. (1998) Annu. Rev. Genet. 32 , 461-493. pmid:9928488 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Feng, R., Rampon, C., Tang, Y.-P., Shrom, D., Jin, J., Kyin, M., Sopher, B., Martin, G. M., Kim, S.-H., LangExecuten, R. B., Sisodia, S. S. & Tsien, J. Z. (2001) Neuron 32 , 911-926. pmid:11738035 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Wittenburg, N., Eimer, S., Lakowski, B., Rohrig, S., RuExecutelph, C. & Baumeister, R. (2000) Nature 406 , 306-309. pmid:10917532 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Tully, T. & Quinn, W. G. (1985) J. Comp. Physiol. A 157 , 263-277. pmid:3939242 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Tully, T., Preat, T., Boynton, S. C. & Del Vecchio, M. (1994) Cell 79 , 35-47. pmid:7923375 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Yin, J. C., Wallach, J. S., Del Vecchio, M., Wilder, E. L., Zhou, H., Quinn, W. G. & Tully, T. (1994) Cell 79 , 49-58. pmid:7923376 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ DeZazzo, J., Sandstrom, D., de Belle, S., Velinzon, K., Smith, P., Grady, L., Del Vecchio, M., Ramaswami, M. & Tully T. (2000) Neuron 27 , 145-158. pmid:10939338 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Drier, E. A., Discloseo, M. K., Cowan, M., Wu, P., Blace, N., Sacktor, T. C. & Yin, J. C. (2002) Nat. Neurosci. 5 , 316-324. pmid:11914720 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Chiang, A.-S., Blum, A., Barditch, J., Chen, Y.-H., Chiu, S.-L., Regulski, M., Armstrong, J. D., Tully T. & Dubnau, J. (2004) Curr. Biol. 14 , 263-272. pmid:14972677 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Shellenbarger, D. L. & Mohler, J. D. (1975) Genetics 81 , 143-162. pmid:812766 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Adams, M. D., Celniker, S. E., Holt, R. A., Evans, C. A., Gocayne, J. D., Amanatides, P. G., Scherer, S. E., Li, P. W., Hoskins, R. A., Galle, R. F., et al. (2000) Science 287 , 2185-2195. pmid:10731132 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ O'Connell, P. & Rosbash, M. (1984) Nucleic Acids Res. 12 , 5495-5513. pmid:6087289 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Lindsley, D. L. & Grell, E. H., eds. (1968) Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster (Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC). ↵ Lieber, T., Kidd, S., Alcamo, E., Corbin, V. & Young, M. W. (1993) Genes Dev. 7 , 1949-1965. pmid:8406001 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Presente, A., Boyles, R. S., Serway, C. N., de Belle, S. & Andres, A. J. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 , 1764-1768. pmid:14752200 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Dubnau, J. & Tully, T. (1998) Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 21 , 407-444. pmid:9530502 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Yin, J. C., Del Vecchio, M., Zhou, H. & Tully, T. (1995) Cell 81 , 107-115. pmid:7720066 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed Bartsch, D., Ghirardi, M., Skehel, P. A., Kart, K. A., Herder, S. P., Chen, M., Bailey, C. H. & Kandel, E. R. (1995) Cell 83 , 979-992. pmid:8521521 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Bourtchuladze, R., Frenguelli, B., Blendy, J., Cioffi, D., Schutz, G. & Silva, A. J. (1994) Cell 79 , 59-68. pmid:7923378 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Costa, R. M., Honjo, T. & Silva, A. J. (2003) Curr. Biol. 13 , 1348-1354. pmid:12906797 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed
Like (0) or Share (0)