QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ben-Shahar, Y. Articles by Robinson, G. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ben-Shahar, Y. Articles by Robinson, G. E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

cGMP-dependent changes in phototaxis: a possible role for the foraging gene in honey bee division of labor

Y. Ben-Shahar^1,*, H.-T. Leung³, W. L. Pak³, M. B. Sokolowski⁴ and G. E. Robinson^1,2

¹ Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 320 Morrill Hall, 505 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
² Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 320 Morrill Hall, 505 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
³ Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
⁴ Department of Zoology, Mississauga Campus, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, ON L5L1C6, Canada

View larger version (83K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Phototaxis apparatus. The proportion of bees that walked from the cage to the light in 3 min was used as an index of positive phototaxis.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Electroretinogram (ERG) measurements in honey bees as a function of behavioral state or treatment. N=6 bees tested at each light intensity, per group. There were no significant differences between the groups (P>0.05; repeated-measures ANOVA).

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Behaviorally related differences in Amfor brain expression. Bars represent relative mRNA differences, normalized to nurses (N). Error bars represent the standard errors of the Ct converted to the same arbitrary scale as the means (see Materials and methods). P values on graphs refer to ANOVA; different letters denote statistically significant differences (P<0.05; pair-wise LSD post hoc analysis). N=8–10 brains per group (see numbers on bars), each brain was analyzed individually. FH, food handlers; U, undertakers; F, foragers.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Phototaxis behavior in honey bees as a function of behavioral state or treatment. (A) Differences in positive phototaxis between nurses and foragers. Group size=20 bees. 2x2 2 tests were conducted for both trials. (B) Effects of 8-Br-cGMP, 8-Br-cAMP on positive phototaxis. Nine trials were conducted; data on the proportion showing positive phototaxis from each trial were arcsine transformed for ANOVA. For graphical purposes, means ± S.E.M. were back-transformed (resulting in asymetrical error bars). For doses, see Materials and methods. `Light', phototaxis behavior when light source is on; `Dark', locomotion control when light source is off.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Effects of 8-Br-cGMP on levels of locomotor activity, age at onset of circadian locomotor rhythms, and tau (the period of rhythmicity) under (A) 12 h:12 h light:dark (L:D) and (B) 24 h dark (D:D) regimes. Activity levels were analyzed only under L:D conditions because light entrains activity. There were no significant differences between the different groups in all experiments (activity, tau, ANOVA; % rhythmicity, P>0.05; 2 tests).

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Brain mRNA levels for genes encoding PKA regulatory (r) and catalytic (c) subunits as a function of behavior. Analysis and graphic representation are as in Fig. 2. cDNA samples were the same as in Fig. 2, trial 1 (with same sample sizes).

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter