Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

The Role of cAMP Response Element-Binding Protein in Drosophila Long-Term Memory

Bastianella Perazzona, Guillaume Isabel, Thomas Preat and Ronald L. Davis
Journal of Neuroscience 6 October 2004, 24 (40) 8823-8828; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4542-03.2004
Bastianella Perazzona
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Guillaume Isabel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Preat
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ronald L. Davis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  •   Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Drosophila dCREB2 isoforms. A, Schematic representation of four different dCREB2 isoforms. B, DNA and protein sequence of the predicted full-length open reading frame and hs-dCREB2-a open reading frame in transgenes present in lines C28 and C30. A deletion of a single nucleotide, g (boxed), at amino acid position 38 produces a shift in reading frame to a new stop codon (bold) at amino acid position 79. The DNA sequence illustrated is the sequence with revisions (see Results) except for this single nucleotide g, which is preserved from the original sequence to illustrate the effect of its deletion on the open reading frame. An alternative and downstream start codon is highlighted in bold at position 160. The hypothetical and truncated version predicted by this open reading frame is shown in bold. The PKA-dependent phosphorylation recognition site is boxed and the bZIP domain is underlined.

  •   Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    RT-PCR analysis of transgenic and control flies. RT-PCR was performed using total RNA isolated from heads from the hs-dCREB2-b line 17-2, hs-dCREB2-a line C30, and control lines CS, wCS10, and ry. Plasmids containing the dCREB2-a, -b, and -d isoforms were used as PCR templates to synthesize size standards using the same primers used for the RT-PCR. All flies were raised at 22°C, collected within 2 d from eclosion, and kept overnight at 25°C. Those that were treated with heat shock were transferred to empty food vials and placed in a 37°C water bath for 30 min. The flies were rested in food vials at 25°C for 3 hr after heat shock and then RNA was isolated. Heat shock treatment induced synthesis of hs-dCREB2-b and hs-dCREB2-a RNAs in flies carrying the respective transgenes. The level of the three detectable CREB splice variants in the control genotypes is very low. A schematic of the CREB gene exons with the location of the primers used is shown at the bottom of the figure along with the size expected for the PCR product of each CREB variant.

  •   Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Western analysis of dCREB2 isoforms. Total protein was prepared from 10 fly heads from line 17-2 expressing the hs-dCREB2-b transgene, C30 expressing the hs-dCREB-a mutant transgene, control lines wCS10 and ry, and UAS-CREB2-a lines containing the dCREB2-a mutant cassette and the dCREB2-a full-length isoform (line T7.1), expressed from a hs-GAL4 element. The equivalent of two heads was loaded in each well. The blot was probed with a 1:20 dilution of a mouse monoclonal antibody raised against a bacterially expressed full-length dCREB2-b protein. The middle panel is a magnified image of the last four lanes of the top panel. This better illustrates the size difference of dCREB2-a and dCREB-b. To control for loading, the blot was stripped and reprobed with a 1:100 dilution of a mouse monoclonal anti-dynamin antibody (bottom).

  •   Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Induction of hs-dCREB2-a and of UAS-dCREB2-a has no effect on memory performance. A, Performance indices are shown for flies that were conditioned 3 hr after heat shock (+hs) or without heat shock (-hs) using a spaced training protocol consisting of five training trials with 15 min rest intervals or a single training trial. Tests were performed 4 d after training. Performance indexes were calculated as described previously (Pascual and Preat, 2001). ANOVA with Fisher's post hoc tests was used to make several important comparisons: the 5× CS (-hs) group was significantly different from both the 1× CS (-hs) (p = 0.0009) and 1× CS (+hs) (p < 0.0001) groups. The 5× hs-dCREB2-a C30 (-hs) group was significantly different from both the 1× hs-dCREB2-a C30 (-hs) (p = 0.0032) and 1× hs-dCREB2-a C30 (+hs) (p = 0.0028) groups. No significant differences were found between the 5× CS (-hs) and 5× hs-dCREB2-a C30 (-hs) groups (p = 0.2708). No significant differences were found between any of the groups provided with 1× training. These comparisons illustrate the significant effect of 5× spaced over 1× training and the lack of an effect of dCREB2-a induction in the hs-dCREB2-a C30 line on LTM. B, RT-PCR analyses of the transgenic flies used for training (hs-dCREB2-a C30) in A showed the heat shock-dependent induction of the transgene. Plasmids containing the dCREB2-a, -b, and -d isoforms were used as templates for PCR to generate size standards. C, Behavioral analysis of UAS-dCREB2-alines T7.1 and T25.4 containing the corrected dCREB2-a open reading frame and driven by hs-GAL4 showed no improvement in memory performance after 1× training compared with the wild-type control. ANOVA with Fisher's post hoc tests was used to make several comparisons. Most importantly, the 1× UAS-dCREB2-a T7.1 and 1× UAS-dCREB2-a T7.1-hsGAL4 groups were not significantly different (p = 0.2237), and the 1× UAS-dCREB2-a T25.4 and 1× UAS-dCREB2-a T25.4-hsGAL4 groups were not significantly different (p = 0.7323). The 5× hsGAL4 group was significantly different from the 1× hsGAL4 group (p = 0.0005), and the 5× UAS-dCREB2-a T25.4 group was significantly different to the 1× UAS-dCREB2-a T25.4 group (p = 0.0095). No significant differences were found between the 1× and 5× trained groups for UAS-dCREB2-a T7.1, UAS-dCREB2-a T7.1-hsGAL4, and UAS-dCREB-a T25.4-hsGAL4. The reason for failing to observe the effect of 5× spaced training for the latter three groups is unclear. D, Twenty-four hour memory after 5× spaced training with and without heat shock was measured for wild-type flies (CS) and the dCREB2-b repressor line 17-2. ANOVA with Fisher's post hoc tests was used to make several important comparisons; no significant differences were found between the CS (-hs) and CS (+hs) groups (p = 0.1064). The hs-dCREB2-b 17-2 (-hs) group was significantly different from both the CS (-hs) (p < 0.0001) and CS (+hs) (p < 0.0001) groups, showing the effect of basal expression of the transgene. The hs-dCREB2-b 17-2 (+hs) group was significantly different from all groups but most importantly from the hs-dCREB2-b 17-2 (-hs) group (p = 0.0449), showing the effect of induced expression of the transgene. Error bars indicate SEM.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 24 (40)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 24, Issue 40
6 Oct 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Role of cAMP Response Element-Binding Protein in Drosophila Long-Term Memory
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
The Role of cAMP Response Element-Binding Protein in Drosophila Long-Term Memory
Bastianella Perazzona, Guillaume Isabel, Thomas Preat, Ronald L. Davis
Journal of Neuroscience 6 October 2004, 24 (40) 8823-8828; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4542-03.2004

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
The Role of cAMP Response Element-Binding Protein in Drosophila Long-Term Memory
Bastianella Perazzona, Guillaume Isabel, Thomas Preat, Ronald L. Davis
Journal of Neuroscience 6 October 2004, 24 (40) 8823-8828; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4542-03.2004
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Heteromodal Cortical Areas Encode Sensory-Motor Features of Word Meaning
  • Pharmacologically Counteracting a Phenotypic Difference in Cerebellar GABAA Receptor Response to Alcohol Prevents Excessive Alcohol Consumption in a High Alcohol-Consuming Rodent Genotype
  • Neuromuscular NMDA Receptors Modulate Developmental Synapse Elimination
Show more Brief Communications
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.