Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25888126›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

Learning-induced gene expression in the heads of two Nasonia species that differ in long-term memory formation.

Katja M Hoedjes, Hans M Smid, Elio G W M Schijlen, Louise E M Vet, Joke J F A van Vugt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. mBio · 2022
    Article
  3. Next-generation biological control: the need for integrating genetics and genomics.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Post-mating Switch in the Pheromone Response ofFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. WaspAtlas: a Nasonia vitripennis gene database and analysis platform.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2015
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katja M HoedjesLaboratory of Entomology, Plant Sciences Group, Wageningen University, P.O. box 8031, 6700AP, Wageningen, The Netherlands. katja.hoedjes@unil.ch.
Hans M SmidLaboratory of Entomology, Plant Sciences Group, Wageningen University, P.O. box 8031, 6700AP, Wageningen, The Netherlands. hansm.smid@wur.nl.
Elio G W M SchijlenPRI Bioscience, Plant Research International, P.O. box 619, 6700AP, Wageningen, The Netherlands. elio.schijlen@wur.nl.
Louise E M VetLaboratory of Entomology, Plant Sciences Group, Wageningen University, P.O. box 8031, 6700AP, Wageningen, The Netherlands. l.vet@nioo.knaw.nl.
Joke J F A van VugtDepartment of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), P.O. Box 50, 6700 AB, Wageningen, The Netherlands. j.f.a.vanvugt-2@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCellular processes underlying memory formation are evolutionary conserved, but natural variation in memory dynamics between animal species or populations is common. The genetic basis of this fascinating phenomenon is poorly understood. Closely related species of Nasonia parasitic wasps differ in long-term memory (LTM) formation: N. vitripennis will form transcription-dependent LTM after a single conditioning trial, whereas the closely-related species N. giraulti will not. Genes that were differentially expressed (DE) after conditioning in N. vitripennis, but not in N. giraulti, were identified as candidate genes that may regulate LTM formation.

resultsRNA was collected from heads of both species before and immediately, 4 or 24 hours after conditioning, with 3 replicates per time point. It was sequenced strand-specifically, which allows distinguishing sense from antisense transcripts and improves the quality of expression analyses. We determined conditioning-induced DE compared to naïve controls for both species. These expression patterns were then analysed with GO enrichment analyses for each species and time point, which demonstrated an enrichment of signalling-related genes immediately after conditioning in N. vitripennis only. Analyses of known LTM genes and genes with an opposing expression pattern between the two species revealed additional candidate genes for the difference in LTM formation. These include genes from various signalling cascades, including several members of the Ras and PI3 kinase signalling pathways, and glutamate receptors. Interestingly, several other known LTM genes were exclusively differentially expressed in N. giraulti, which may indicate an LTM-inhibitory mechanism. Among the DE transcripts were also antisense transcripts. Furthermore, antisense transcripts aligning to a number of known memory genes were detected, which may have a role in regulating these genes.

conclusionThis study is the first to describe and compare expression patterns of both protein-coding and antisense transcripts, at different time points after conditioning, of two closely related animal species that differ in LTM formation. Several candidate genes that may regulate differences in LTM have been identified. This transcriptome analysis is a valuable resource for future in-depth studies to elucidate the role of candidate genes and antisense transcription in natural variation in LTM formation.

Indexed as

OdorantsTranscriptomeAlternative SplicingAnimalsBrainFemaleFlavoring AgentsHymenopteraMemory, Long-TermOligoribonucleotides, AntisenseRNARNA InterferenceRNA, Long NoncodingSequence Analysis, RNAFlavoring AgentsOligoribonucleotides, AntisenseRNARNA, Long Noncoding

Identifiers

PMID25888126
PMCPMC4440501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.