ArticlePeerJ2015
Large-scale assessment of olfactory preferences and learning in Drosophila melanogaster: behavioral and genetic components.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ameliorative role of Polyscias fruticosa leaf extract in aluminum chloride-induced neurotoxicity flies possibly mediated by N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonistic and anticholinesterase active compounds.Journal of natural medicines · 2025Article
- Multiple methods for assessing learning and memory inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Exploring the Therapeutic Potential ofACS omega · 2024Article
- Naïve Chicks Prefer Hollow Objects.PloS one · 2016Article
- Origins of Knowledge: Insights from Precocial Species.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the Evolve and Resequence method (E&R), experimental evolution and genomics are combined to investigate evolutionary dynamics and the genotype-phenotype link. As other genomic approaches, this methods requires many replicates with large population sizes, which imposes severe restrictions on the analysis of behavioral phenotypes. Aiming to use E&R for investigating the evolution of behavior in Drosophila, we have developed a simple and effective method to assess spontaneous olfactory preferences and learning in large samples of fruit flies using a T-maze. We tested this procedure on (a) a large wild-caught population and (b) 11 isofemale lines of Drosophila melanogaster. Compared to previous methods, this procedure reduces the environmental noise and allows for the analysis of large population samples. Consistent with previous results, we show that flies have a preference for orange vs. apple odor. With our procedure wild-derived flies exhibit olfactory learning in the absence of previous laboratory selection. Furthermore, we find genetic differences in the olfactory learning with relatively high heritability. We propose this large-scale method as an effective tool for E&R and genome-wide association studies on olfactory preferences and learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.