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

• Published in: BMC genomics Vol. 16; no. 1; p. 162
• Main Authors: Hoedjes, Katja M, Smid, Hans M, Schijlen, Elio G W M, Vet, Louise E M, van Vugt, Joke J F A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 10.03.2015; BioMed Central
• Subjects: Alternative Splicing; Analysis; Animals; antisense transcription; Brain - metabolism; consolidation; drosophila; Female; Flavoring Agents - pharmacology; foraging success; Genetic aspects; Genetic research; Genetic transcription; Hymenoptera - genetics; Hymenoptera - metabolism; Memory, Long-Term - drug effects; Memory, Long-Term - physiology; natural variation; Odorants; Oligoribonucleotides, Antisense - metabolism; opportunities; parasitic wasps; pathway; Physiological aspects; protein-synthesis; RNA - analysis; RNA - isolation & purification; RNA - metabolism; RNA Interference; RNA, Long Noncoding - analysis; RNA, Long Noncoding - isolation & purification; RNA, Long Noncoding - metabolism; Sequence Analysis, RNA; Transcriptome; vitripennis; Wasps
• DOI: 10.1186/s12864-015-1355-1
• ISSN: 1471-2164

Cellular 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. RNA 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. This 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.