A neonicotinoid pesticide alters Drosophila olfactory processing

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2472851/v1

Download PDF

Article

A neonicotinoid pesticide alters Drosophila olfactory processing

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2472851/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 29 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Neonicotinoid pesticides are well-known for their sublethal effects on insect behavior and physiology. Recent work suggests neonicotinoids can impair insect olfactory processing, with potential downstream effects on behavior and possibly survival. However, it is unclear whether impairment occurs during peripheral olfactory detection, during information processing in central brain regions, or in both contexts. We used Drosophila melanogaster to explore the potential for neonicotinoids to disrupt olfaction by conducting electrophysiological analyses of single neurons and whole antennae of flies exposed to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (IMD). Our results demonstrated that IMD exposure significantly reduced the activity of a single focal olfactory neuron and delayed the return to baseline activity of the whole antenna. To determine if IMD also impacts olfactory-guided behavior, we compared flies’ relative preference for odor sources varying in ethanol content. Flies exposed to IMD had a greater relative preference for ethanol-laced pineapple juice than control flies, demonstrating that neuronal shifts induced by IMD are associated with changes in relative preference. Given the interest in the sensory impacts of agrochemical exposure on wild insect behavior and physiology, we highlight the potential of Drosophila as a tractable model for investigating the effects of pesticides at scales ranging from single-neuron physiology to olfactory-guided behavior.

Biological sciences/Neuroscience

Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Olfactory system

Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Sensory processing

Biological sciences/Ecology/Agri ecology

Insects are experiencing alarming declines in abundance around the globe^1,2. These declines have gained attention for the threat they pose to ecosystem services, including pollination, nutrient cycling, and food web stability^1–3. Principal among the factors implicated in these declines are human-induced stressors such as habitat loss, climate change, invasive species, and agricultural intensification⁴. For example, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides have become ubiquitous in agricultural settings and urban environments (including backyard gardens) and can even be detected in conservation areas in a broad array of plant taxa^5–7. Although these chemicals control pests and plant pathogens, non-target insects such as bees and butterflies encounter them while foraging from chemical-laden plants. These chemicals can have non-consumptive effects such as creating odor-pollution, which makes olfactory-based tasks such as foraging and navigation challenging for insects^8,9. However once consumed, they have detrimental impacts on non-target insect health, which can persist for generations after exposure^10–14.

Neonicotinoids have quickly grown to become the most widely used insecticide in the world¹⁵. This class of pesticide has received considerable attention for their effects on non-target insects such as pollinators^16–19. These chemicals are structurally similar to nicotine and have many sublethal effects on insect biology, including but not limited to locomotion, reproduction and growth, behavior and learning, immune function, and nervous system performance^20–22. A well-documented effect of neonicotinoids on insect nervous systems relates to their influence on sensory performance, particularly olfactory performance^11,23. For example, Muth at al. (2019) found a sublethal dose of a neonicotinoid impaired bumble bees’ (Bombus impatiens) ability to distinguish odors but not colors, indicating that neonicotinoids may have differential effects on sensory systems¹¹.

However, the exact neural basis of these sensory effects is unclear. Neonicotinoids act on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) responsible for transmitting olfactory information throughout the insect nervous system²⁴ and likely cause disruptions to both peripheral and central processing. Neonicotinoid exposure can affect neurons in the peripheral antennal lobes^25,26, while more centrally, neonicotinoid exposure can inhibit Kenyon cell activity in the mushroom bodies²⁷. Neonicotinoids might also affect the activity of olfactory sensory neurons (OSN), impacting the transmission of olfactory information and affecting its quality before more central processing can occur. Although a 2014 study by Rabhi et al.²⁶ did not find changes in OSN response to a pheromone blend in moths exposed to the neonicotinoid Clothianidin, it is unclear if these results generalize across taxa, pesticides, and olfactory contexts.

We aimed to identify the peripheral effects of a neonicotinoid pesticide on olfactory processing using Drosophila melanogaster. This model’s well-characterized olfactory physiology allowed us to assess potential impacts scaling from the activity of single neurons, to whole antennal function, to individual fly behavior across three separate experiments. First, at the single neuron level, we assessed whether the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (IMD) alters the sensitivity of a single OSN to a focal odor (Exp. 1). Next, we tested whether IMD alters sensitivity to a focal odor at the whole antenna level (Exp. 2). Finally, we asked if IMD affects performance on an olfactory preference assay (Exp. 3). Drosophila melanogaster is a powerful system to explore the effects of pesticide exposure on sensory processing, as OSN structure and function are well-conserved across insects, including beneficial pollinator taxa such as bees and butterflies, where we have fewer tools to identify the potential mechanisms by which pesticide exposure may affect sensory systems^24,28.

Experiment 1: IMD exposure causes concentration-dependent effects on single neuron function:

To understand the potential impacts of IMD exposure on individual olfactory sensory neuron (OSN) activity, we performed single-unit recordings on flies (N = 14) after three days of IMD exposure. We compared the effects of IMD concentration (0, 10, or 100 µM) on the activity of single neurons (Fig. S2a) and found that IMD treatment significantly affected OSN activity in a concentration-dependent manner (Fig. 1a, X² = 18.06, P < 0.001). Although there was no difference in OSN activity between control flies and those maintained on a 10 µM IMD diet (post-hoc Tukey HSD tests: P = 0.44), flies reared on the 100 µM IMD diet had significantly lower OSN activity compared to the 0 and 10 µM IMD treatments (post-hoc Tukey HSD tests: P = 0.002 and < 0.001, respectively).

Experiment 2: IMD exposure delays return to baseline antennal activity:

Focusing on the treatment where we observed an effect in Exp. 1, we compared the whole antennal responses (electroantennograms, EAGs) of flies (N = 9) exposed to 0 vs. 100 µM IMD (Fig. S2b). We found no differences between treatments in either the minimum response or the response integral (minimum response: X²= 0.932, P = 0.334; response integral: X²= 2.44, P = 0.12). However, the antennae of flies exposed to 100 µM of IMD took longer than control flies to return to baseline activity after odor stimulation (Fig. 1b, X²= 24.67, P < 0.001).

Experiment 3: IMD exposure altered performance in an olfactory test:

Given the differences in antennal and OSN activity in flies exposed to IMD (Exp. 1, 2), we asked if these changes in neuron activity affected flies’ performance on an olfactory choice test. We used a modified trap assay²⁹ to simultaneously offer two odor traps, one containing pineapple juice (hereafter referred to as “juice”) and one containing pineapple juice adulterated with 10% ethanol by volume (hereafter referred to as “juice + ethanol”). We found significant treatment-level differences in whether flies were found in either of our two odor traps (Fig. 2a, X²= 17.11, P < 0.001) and only 32% of all flies tested (N = 213) were found in either odor trap at the end of the experiment (N = 33, 32, and 3 for 0, 10, and 100 µM treatment groups, respectively). Flies treated with 0 and 10 µM were equally as likely to become trapped (post-hoc Tukey HSD tests: P = 0.21), but 100 µM flies were significantly less likely to become trapped compared to 0 and 10 µM flies (post-hoc Tukey HSD tests: P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Of these trapped flies, 66.7% of the 0 µM flies had a relative preference for juice and 33.3% for juice + ethanol, but this pattern was reversed with exposure to IMD (Fig. 2b). Flies exposed to 10 µM had a significantly higher relative preference for juice + ethanol (59.4% juice + ethanol vs 40.6 % juice) compared to control flies, but this was not true for 100 µM flies (10 µM: Z-stat = 2.080, P = 0.038, 100 µM: Z-stat = 0.012, P = 0.990). Of the 3 flies in the 100 µM treatment that were trapped, they were exclusively found in the juice + ethanol trap (0.0% to juice vs. 100% to juice + ethanol).

Using D. melanogaster as a model, we examined whether a common neonicotinoid pesticide, imidacloprid (IMD), caused changes in the activity of a single olfactory neuron, whole antenna function, and performance on an olfactory test. We found that following exposure, flies showed a reduction in neuron activity and a delay in return to baseline antennal response. In addition, these effects may scale up to alter olfactory-mediated behavior. We also found that flies exposed to IMD had a higher relative preference for pineapple juice containing ethanol than our control group. However, this pattern did not hold for our highest IMD exposure level as only three flies from this group were found in an odor trap.

Past work has shown that neonicotinoids can disrupt insect sensory systems, including vision and olfaction. Work by Parkinson and colleagues in Locusta migratoria found IMD reduced both the peak firing rate of a crucial motion-sensitive neuron and flight avoidance behavior in response to motion-based stimuli^30,31. In the hoverfly (Eristalis tenax), IMD exposure can also reduce stimuli-induced activity in lobula plate tangential cells, which are involved in motion detection in the fly brain³². There is also strong evidence to suggest that neonicotinoids affect insect chemoreception, including gustation and olfaction, at least in bees^23,33–35. Neonicotinoids have been shown to impact specific olfactory regions such as the mushroom bodies and antennal lobes^25–27, and behaviors such as odor-based learning and navigation^11,22,36, and their impact may be stronger on olfactory- than visually-guided behavior¹¹. A study by Muth et al. (2019) demonstrated that bumble bees trained to a specific color-scent discrimination task were more likely to make errors relating to scent identity than to color¹¹. It is also worth noting that the magnitude of olfactory disruption may vary with taxa and sensory context; studies analogous to ours in moths have shown inconsistent effects (if any) on olfactory neurons involved in pheromone detection^26,36. In contrast, our results demonstrate that this neonicotinoid pesticide may impair D. melanogaster olfactory neurons as well as olfactory-based behavior.

Olfactory Neuron and Antennal Activity

Neonicotinoids primarily act as antagonists of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs), which are found throughout the insect central nervous system, and are abundant in the olfactory system, including OSNs^37,38. When a neonicotinoid binds to these receptors, it initially causes hyperexcitation³⁹; however, prolonged exposure to neonicotinoids such as IMD leads to neuron inactivation^38,40. Our results suggest that a prolonged exposure of 100 µM may have induced the inactivation of OSNs, leading to a significantly smaller response to the odor. A recent study by Rabhi et al. found exposure to the neonicotinoid Clothianidin did not alter OSN activity in the black cutworm moth Agrotis ipsilon²⁶. However, these authors fed moths an acute dose of the pesticide, whereas we sustained exposure over three days (and focused on a different neonicotinoid). Our approach to pesticide exposure (which followed Daisley et al.⁴¹) manipulated the concentration of IMD in fly food media. We did not otherwise control the timing of exposure. However, in a parallel experiment, we confirmed that survival at different concentrations of IMD exposure differed (Supplemental Material; Fig. S1). Both acute and chronic exposure are likely relevant for wild insects, and the differences in the results of these studies may reflect the variation in timing, concentration, or accumulation of exposure.

There may also be system-specific differences in how these chemicals act. Regarding whole antenna response, studies of a one-time topical application of the neonicotinoids Thiacloprid and Clothianidin found that these chemicals can reduce EAG response in one species of moth, and two species of bee (Lobesia botrana, Osmia bicornis, and Bombus terrestris)^36,42. In contrast, we found D. melanogaster showed no difference in the strength of the EAG response with IMD exposure but did show differences in EAG latency to return to baseline response. Although we know neonicotinoids like IMD target nAChRs, it is possible that neonicotinoids also alter neuron function through other mechanisms. These chemicals might change the electrophysiological environment surrounding these neurons, or alter neuron function similar to other neurotoxins shifting the voltage dependence of activation, inhibiting inactivation, or inhibiting ion transport⁴³. More studies would be needed to dissect the precise mechanism(s) by which IMD affects EAG response latency.

Performance on Olfactory Test

We found that exposure to a low, sublethal concentration of IMD (10 µM) can change D. melanogaster’srelative preference for the presence of ethanol in an odor source. Drosophila melanogaster lay their eggs in fermenting fruit and show a preference for alcohol fermentation products such as ethanol⁴⁴. These flies have evolved a tolerance of alcohol and even seek out ethanol when infected by parasites which in turn causes parasite mortality⁴⁵. Whether the relative preference for ethanol in neonicotinoid-stressed flies in our study was driven by self-medication, or some other physiological changes remains to be tested. Neonicotinoids also decrease mobility, foraging motivation, and consumption in bees^21,42,46,47, which might explain why flies in the 100 µM treatment group had the lowest participation in the test.

Neonicotinoid-induced olfactory impairment could affect a diverse assortment of insects, especially pollinators and other insects that depend on olfaction-based navigation and memory much more strongly than sedentary insects like aphids^28,48. Utilizing the extensively annotated olfactory system of D. melanogaster (which is well-conserved among insects) allows us to understand the neurological basis of neonicotinoids’ behavioral effects at a higher degree of resolution than is possible in other insect systems. Such studies might unmask the mechanism by which these compounds alter neuron function which in turn affects important behaviors such as foraging or mating that might be missed by traditional assays. By evaluating the subtle effects of such pesticides in model systems like D. melanogaster, we can continue to understand the scope of their impact and role in the decline of beneficial insect populations such as pollinators.

We maintained Canton-S WT of Drosophila melanogaster on standard cornmeal-dextrose agar (prepared according to manufacturer’s protocol: Genesee Scientific, San Diego, California) on a 12-hour light cycle at 25 °C and 60% relative humidity, unless otherwise specified. Upon eclosure, we transferred adult flies to experimental media (see below). All experimental individuals were three-day-old adult female flies.

Chemical reagents

To create a 1:1 stock solution, we dissolved IMD (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), which was then pipetted into the food during preparation at concentrations ranging from 0, 10, 50, and 100 µM following Daisley et al. 2017⁴¹. We supplemented food media with indigo-carmine dye (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) to visually confirm food consumption, and additionally, before beginning our experiments, we performed a separate pilot survival assay to confirm the exposure protocol (Supplemental Material, Fig. S1).

Experiment 1: Single neuron function

We performed single-unit olfactory sensory neuron (OSN) recordings on flies (N = 14) following⁴⁹. Flies were exposed to diets prepared as described above to contain 0, 10, and 100 µM of IMD. All recordings were conducted as previously described^50,51. Briefly, we recorded neuron activity from the AB3 sensilla immediately following stimulation with methyl hexanoate. Methyl hexanoate is a compound found in ripe fruit (such as pineapples, passion fruit, and strawberries), and is known to elicit a strong response in olfactory receptor neurons⁵². We presented odor stimuli using a Pasteur pipette containing 50 µL of methyl hexanoate diluted in paraffin oil (10^-4 dilution) placed on a Whatman 13-mm filter paper disk (Millipore). We prepared these odor cartridges shortly before odor presentation, and each cartridge was never used more than three times. Three recordings were taken from three separate AB3 sensilla for each individual where possible (n = 20, 30, and 22 recordings per treatment, respectively). Then, we assessed the spike frequency of the AB3a neuron in the first 500 milliseconds post-stimulus. The mean response frequency to DMSO alone (which includes spontaneous response) was subtracted from each odor response frequency for each recording.

Experiment 2: Antennal response

We performed whole antenna electroantennograms (EAG) following^53,54 on flies exposed to diets prepared as described above to contain either 0 or 100 µM of IMD (N = 5 and 4 individuals, respectively). We placed the recording electrode in the antennal region rich in AB3 sensilla and then conducted three recordings per individual (n = 14 and 10 recordings, respectively) immediately following stimulation with methyl hexanoate diluted in paraffin oil (10^-4 dilution, preparing odor cartridges as above). We quantified antennal response as the minimum, the integral of the response curve, and the time to return to baseline (0 mV) for each recording.

Experiment 3: Performance on an olfactory test

To assess the potential impacts of IMD on olfactory-guided behavior, we used a modified trap assay²⁹ where flies were simultaneously offered two odorants representing ripe vs. unripe fruit. Assays took place inside experimental chambers (dimensions 24.75 x 14.5 x 11.5 cm) housed in an incubator on a 24-hour dark cycle to reduce the influence of visual stimuli. Odor traps were constructed from clear plastic 12-dram vials. Each odor trap was fitted with the cut end of a 1000 µL pipette tip, allowing flies to enter the trap, but not exit.

One odor trap contained 1000 µL unadulterated canned liquid pineapple juice (Dole Food Company and Total Produce, USA, which was kept frozen until use), and the other contained pineapple juice adulterated with 10% ethanol by volume. Ethanol, a byproduct of the fermentation process, should be attractive to mated female fruit flies, which lay eggs in fermenting fruit⁴⁴. In addition, ethanol has been shown to elicit a strong EAG response in D. melanogaster, and when used in a blend with other compounds commonly found in fermenting fruit, the blend lured and trapped more flies than compounds in isolation⁵⁵. Flies were exposed to IMD as in Exp. 1 and 2, but in this experiment, 10 female and 10 male flies were placed in each vial to allow mating. After three days of exposure, adult females were transferred to an experimental chamber. Within a chamber, all flies were assigned to the same treatment (0, 10, or 100 µM). After 48 hours, we counted flies in each odor trap and the number of un-trapped flies remaining in the experimental chamber.

Analyses

All statistical analyses were carried out in R version 4.0.2⁵⁶. To compare OSN response by treatment, we used a linear mixed-model approach treating individual as a random effect using the lme4 package⁵⁷ and type II ANOVA using the ANOVA function from the car package⁵⁸ and Tukey comparison was performed using the glht function from the multcomp package⁵⁹. Electroantennogram response analysis again used a linear mixed-model approach treating individual as a random effect, but here we used three separate models for each of our three response variables: minimum, integral, and return to baseline for each treatment. To assess performance on an olfactory test, here we used a binomial linear regression to compare the total number of flies in either odor trap (“trapped flies”) to flies in the larger experimental chamber (“un-trapped flies”) for each treatment using the stats package⁶⁰ and type II ANOVA using the ANOVA function from the car package⁵⁸ and Tukey comparison was performed using the glht function from the multcomp package⁵⁹ as before. This allowed us to estimate the effects of the insecticide on fly movement and/or feeding motivation, two aspects of behavior for which IMD has well-documented effects¹⁸. To assess if IMD also alters odor discrimination, we used a separate binomial regression to compare the number of flies in the unadulterated juice odor trap and the adulterated (juice + 10% ethanol) juice odor trap.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Pollinator Health program (NIFA 2018-67014-27543 to A.S.L. and D.M.) from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Author Contributions

AL, AT, & DM conceived and designed the research. AT collected the data, performed statistical analyses, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets and R scripts for statistical analysis generated by this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Additional Information

The authors declare no competing interests.

Goulson, D. The insect apocalypse, and why it matters. Curr. Biol. 29, R967–R971 (2019).
Wagner, D. L. Insect declines in the anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 457–480 (2020).
Vanbergen, A. J. & Initiative, P. Threats to an ecosystem service : pressures on pollinators. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 251–259 (2013).
Forister, M. L., Pelton, E. M. & Black, S. H. Declines in insect abundance and diversity: We know enough to act now. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, 1–8 (2019).
Halsch, C. A. et al. Pesticide contamination of milkweeds across the agricultural, urban, and open spaces of low-elevation northern california. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1–11 (2020).
Zioga, E., Kelly, R., White, B. & Stout, J. C. Plant protection product residues in plant pollen and nectar: A review of current knowledge. Environ. Res. 189, (2020).
Meftaul, I., Venkateswarlu, K., Dharmarajan, R. & Annamalai, P. Science of the Total Environment Pesticides in the urban environment : A potential threat that knocks at the door. Sci. Total Environ. 711, 134612 (2020).
David, N. F., Henry, T. J. & Sprayberry, J. D. H. Odor-Pollution From Fungicides Disrupts Learning and Recognition of a Common Floral Scent in Bumblebees (Bombus impatiens). Front. Ecol. Evol. 10, 0–14 (2022).
Sprayberry, J. D. H., Ritter, K. A. & Riffell, J. A. The Effect of Olfactory Exposure to Non-Insecticidal Agrochemicals on Bumblebee Foraging Behavior. PLoS One 8, 1–9 (2013).
Johnson, R. M., Ellis, M. D., Mullin, C. A. & Frazier, M. Pesticides and honey bee toxicity - USA. Apidologie 41, 312–331 (2010).
Muth, F., Francis, J. S. & Leonard, A. S. Modality-specific impairment of learning by a neonicotinoid pesticide. Biol. Lett. 15, 1–5 (2019).
Cullen, M. G., Thompson, L. J., Carolan, J. C., Stout, J. C. & Stanley, D. A. Fungicides, herbicides and bees: A systematic review of existing research and methods. PLoS One 14, 1–17 (2019).
Stuligross, C. & Williams, N. M. Past insecticide exposure reduces bee reproduction and population growth rate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118, 1–6 (2021).
Botías, C., David, A., Hill, E. M. & Goulson, D. Contamination of wild plants near neonicotinoid seed-treated crops, and implications for non-target insects. Sci. Total Environ. 566–567, 269–278 (2016).
Nauen, R., Jeschke, P. & Copping, L. In Focus: Neonicotinoid insecticides. Pest Manag. Sci. 64, 1081 (2008).
Yang, E. C., Chuang, Y. C., Chen, Y. L. & Chang, L. H. Abnormal foraging behavior induced by sublethal dosage of imidacloprid in the honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 101, 1743–1748 (2008).
Medrzycki, P. et al. Effects of imidacloprid administered in sub-lethal doses on honey bee behaviour. Laboratory tests. Bull. Insectology 56, 59–62 (2003).
Muth, F. & Leonard, A. S. A neonicotinoid pesticide impairs foraging, but not learning, in free-flying bumblebees. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–13 (2019).
Sandrock, C. et al. Sublethal neonicotinoid insecticide exposure reduces solitary bee reproductive success. Agric. For. Entomol. 16, 119–128 (2014).
Singla, A., Barmota, H., Kumar Sahoo, S. & Kaur Kang, B. Influence of neonicotinoids on pollinators: A review. J. Apic. Res. 0, 1–14 (2020).
Pisa, L. W. et al. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 68–102 (2014).
Mustard, J. A., Gott, A., Scott, J., Chavarria, N. L. & Wright, G. A. Honeybees fail to discriminate floral scents in a complex learning task after consuming a neonicotinoid pesticide. J. Exp. Biol. 223, (2020).
Tan, K. et al. A neonicotinoid impairs olfactory learning in Asian honey bees (Apis cerana) exposed as larvae or as adults. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–8 (2015).
Dupuis, J., Louis, T., Gauthier, M. & Raymond, V. Insights from honeybee (Apis mellifera) and fly (Drosophila melanogaster) nicotinic acetylcholine receptors: From genes to behavioral functions. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 36, 1553–1564 (2012).
Andrione, M., Vallortigara, G., Antolini, R. & Haase, A. Neonicotinoid-induced impairment of odour coding in the honeybee. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–9 (2016).
Rabhi, K. K. et al. Low doses of a neonicotinoid insecticide modify pheromone response thresholds of central but not peripheral olfactory neurons in a pest insect. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, (2016).
Palmer, M. J. et al. Cholinergic pesticides cause mushroom body neuronal inactivation in honeybees. Nat. Commun. 4, (2013).
Tasman, K., Rands, S. A. & Hodge, J. J. L. The Power of Drosophila melanogaster for Modeling Neonicotinoid Effects on Pollinators and Identifying Novel Mechanisms. Front. Physiol. 12, 1–21 (2021).
Larsson, M. C. et al. Or83b encodes a broadly expressed odorant receptor essential for Drosophila olfaction. Neuron 43, 703–714 (2004).
Parkinson, R. H. & Gray, J. R. Neural conduction, visual motion detection, and insect flight behaviour are disrupted by low doses of imidacloprid and its metabolites. Neurotoxicology 72, 107–113 (2019).
Parkinson, R. H., Little, J. M. & Gray, J. R. A sublethal dose of a neonicotinoid insecticide disrupts visual processing and collision avoidance behaviour in Locusta migratoria. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–13 (2017).
Rigosi, E. & O’Carroll, D. C. The cholinergic pesticide imidacloprid impairs contrast and direction sensitivity in motion detecting neurons of an insect pollinator. bioRxiv 295576, (2018).
Richman, S. K., Muth, F. & Leonard, A. S. Measuring foraging preferences in bumble bees: a comparison of popular laboratory methods and a test for sucrose preferences following neonicotinoid exposure. Oecologia 196, 963–976 (2021).
Alkassab, A. T. & Kirchner, W. H. Sublethal exposure to neonicotinoids and related side effects on insect pollinators: honeybees, bumblebees, and solitary bees. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 124, 1–30 (2017).
Blacquière, T., Smagghe, G., Van Gestel, C. A. M. & Mommaerts, V. Neonicotinoids in bees: A review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 21, 973–992 (2012).
Navarro-Roldán, M. A., Amat, C., Bau, J. & Gemeno, C. Extremely low neonicotinoid doses alter navigation of pest insects along pheromone plumes. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–9 (2019).
Breer, H. & Sattelle, D. B. Molecular properties and functions of insect acetylcholine receptors. J. Insect Physiol. 33, 771–790 (1987).
Salgado, V. L. & Saar, R. Desensitizing and non-desensitizing subtypes of alpha-bungarotoxin- sensitive nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in cockroach neurons. J. Insect Physiol. 50, 867–879 (2004).
Tackenberg, M. C. et al. Neonicotinoids disrupt circadian rhythms and sleep in honey bees. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–10 (2020).
Tan, J., Galligan, J. J. & Hollingworth, R. M. Agonist actions of neonicotinoids on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors expressed by cockroach neurons. Neurotoxicology 28, 829–842 (2007).
Daisley, B. A. et al. Neonicotinoid-induced pathogen susceptibility is mitigated by Lactobacillus plantarum immune stimulation in a Drosophila melanogaster model. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–13 (2017).
Straub, F., Orih, I. J., Kimmich, J. & Ayasse, M. Negative Effects of the Neonicotinoid Clothianidin on Foraging Behavior and Antennal Sensitivity in Two Common Pollinator Species, Osmia bicornis and Bombus terrestris. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 1–10 (2021).
Zlotkin, E., Fishman, Y. & Elazar, M. AaIT: From neurotoxin to insecticide. Biochimie 82, 869–881 (2000).
David, J. R. & Van Herrewege, J. Adaptation to alcoholic fermentation in Drosophila species: Relationship between alcohol tolerance and larval habitat. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. -- Part A Physiol. 74, 283–288 (1983).
Milan, N. F., Kacsoh, B. Z. & Schlenke, T. A. Alcohol consumption as self-medication against blood-borne parasites in the fruit fly. Curr. Biol. 22, 488–493 (2012).
Lämsä, J., Kuusela, E., Tuomi, J., Juntunen, S. & Watts, P. C. Low dose of neonicotinoid insecticide reduces foraging motivation of bumblebees. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, (2018).
Cresswell, J. E., Robert, F. X. L., Florance, H. & Smirnoff, N. Clearance of ingested neonicotinoid pesticide (imidacloprid) in honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Pest Manag. Sci. 70, 332–337 (2014).
Sprayberry, J. D. H. The prevalence of olfactory- versus visual-signal encounter by searching bumblebees. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–10 (2018).
Mathew, D. et al. Functional diversity among sensory receptors in a Drosophila olfactory circuit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, (2013).
Dobritsa, A. A., Van Der Goes Van Naters, W., Warr, C. G., Steinbrecht, R. A. & Carlson, J. R. Integrating the molecular and cellular basis of odor coding in the Drosophila antenna. Neuron 37, 827–841 (2003).
Hallem, E. A., Ho, M. G. & Carlson, J. R. The molecular basis of odor coding in the Drosophila antenna. Cell 117, 965–979 (2004).
Pelz, D., Roeske, T., Syed, Z., De Bruyne, M. & Galizia, C. G. The molecular receptive range of an olfactory receptor in vivo (Drosophila melanogaster Or22a). J. Neurobiol. 66, 1544–1563 (2006).
Park, K. C., Ochieng, S. A., Zhu, J. & Baker, T. C. Odor discrimination using insect electroantennogram responses from an insect antennal array. Chem. Senses 27, 343–352 (2002).
Olsson, S. B. & Hansson, B. S. Electroantennogram and Single Sensillum Recording in Insect Antennae. Methods Mol. Biol. 1068, 157–177 (2013).
Zhu, J., Park, K. C. & Baker, T. C. Identification of odors from overripe mango that attract vinegar flies, Drosophila melanogaster. J. Chem. Ecol. 29, 899–909 (2003).
Team, Rs. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. (2022).
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2014).
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression. Sage (2011).
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical J. 50, 346–363 (2008).
Development Core Team, R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2020).

No competing interests reported.

FlySupplement1.9docx.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 29 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

Editorial decision: Major revision
02 Apr, 2023
Reviews received at journal
09 Mar, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
13 Feb, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
10 Feb, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
10 Feb, 2023
Editor invited by journal
13 Jan, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
13 Jan, 2023
First submitted to journal
12 Jan, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

A neonicotinoid pesticide alters Drosophila olfactory processing

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Methods

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1