Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Dopamine-based mechanism for transient forgetting

Abstract

Active forgetting is an essential component of the memory management system of the brain1. Forgetting can be permanent, in which prior memory is lost completely, or transient, in which memory exists in a temporary state of impaired retrieval. Temporary blocks on memory seem to be universal, and can disrupt an individual’s plans, social interactions and ability to make rapid, flexible and appropriate choices. However, the neurobiological mechanisms that cause transient forgetting are unknown. Here we identify a single dopamine neuron in Drosophila that mediates the memory suppression that results in transient forgetting. Artificially activating this neuron did not abolish the expression of long-term memory. Instead, it briefly suppressed memory retrieval, with the memory becoming accessible again over time. The dopamine neuron modulates memory retrieval by stimulating a unique dopamine receptor that is expressed in a restricted physical compartment of the axons of mushroom body neurons. This mechanism for transient forgetting is triggered by the presentation of interfering stimuli immediately before retrieval.

Fig. 1: External stimuli transiently disrupt retrieval of PSD-LTM.
Fig. 2: Transient suppression of memory engages a single pair of PPL1 DANs and the dopamine receptor DAMB.
Fig. 3: Stimulating PPL1-α2α′2 did not erase the 72-h PSD-LTM trace in MBON-α2sc.
Fig. 4: Airflow, electric shock or blue light require PPL1-α2α′2 and DAMB function to cause transient forgetting.

Data availability

All relevant data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. 1.

    Davis, R. L. & Zhong, Y. The biology of forgetting—a perspective. Neuron 95, 490–503 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kitazono, T. et al. Multiple signaling pathways coordinately regulate forgetting of olfactory adaptation through control of sensory responses in Caenorhabditis elegans. J. Neurosci. 37, 10240–10251 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Patel, U. et al. Transcriptional changes before and after forgetting of a long-term sensitization memory in Aplysia californica. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 155, 474–485 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mao, Z. & Davis, R. L. Eight different types of dopaminergic neurons innervate the Drosophila mushroom body neuropil: anatomical and physiological heterogeneity. Front. Neural Circuits 3, 5 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Berry, J. A., Cervantes-Sandoval, I., Nicholas, E. P. & Davis, R. L. Dopamine is required for learning and forgetting in Drosophila. Neuron 74, 530–542 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Berry, J. A., Phan, A. & Davis, R. L. Dopamine neurons mediate learning and forgetting through bidirectional modulation of a memory trace. Cell Rep. 25, 651–662.e5 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Berry, J. A., Cervantes-Sandoval, I., Chakraborty, M. & Davis, R. L. Sleep facilitates memory by blocking dopamine neuron-mediated forgetting. Cell 161, 1656–1667 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cervantes-Sandoval, I., Chakraborty, M., MacMullen, C. & Davis, R. L. Scribble scaffolds a signalosome for active forgetting. Neuron 90, 1230–1242 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Shuai, Y. et al. Forgetting is regulated through Rac activity in Drosophila. Cell 140, 579–589 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Schwartz, B. L. & Metcalfe, J. Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states: retrieval, behavior, and experience. Mem. Cognit. 39, 737–749 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Maril, A., Simons, J. S., Weaver, J. J. & Schacter, D. L. Graded recall success: an event-related fMRI comparison of tip of the tongue and feeling of knowing. Neuroimage 24, 1130–1138 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Han, K. A., Millar, N. S., Grotewiel, M. S. & Davis, R. L. DAMB, a novel dopamine receptor expressed specifically in Drosophila mushroom bodies. Neuron 16, 1127–1135 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Himmelreich, S. et al. Dopamine receptor DAMB signals via Gq to mediate forgetting in Drosophila. Cell Rep. 21, 2074–2081 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Davis, R. L. Traces of Drosophila memory. Neuron 70, 8–19 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Pascual, A. & Préat, T. Localization of long-term memory within the Drosophila mushroom body. Science 294, 1115–1117 (2001).

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cervantes-Sandoval, I., Martin-Peña, A., Berry, J. A. & Davis, R. L. System-like consolidation of olfactory memories in Drosophila. J. Neurosci. 33, 9846–9854 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Roman, G., Endo, K., Zong, L. & Davis, R. L. P{Switch}, a system for spatial and temporal control of gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 12602–12607 (2001).

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tonegawa, S., Liu, X., Ramirez, S. & Redondo, R. Memory engram cells have come of age. Neuron 87, 918–931 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Yu, D., Ponomarev, A. & Davis, R. L. Altered representation of the spatial code for odors after olfactory classical conditioning; memory trace formation by synaptic recruitment. Neuron 42, 437–449 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Yu, D., Akalal, D. B. G. & Davis, R. L. Drosophila α/β mushroom body neurons form a branch-specific, long-term cellular memory trace after spaced olfactory conditioning. Neuron 52, 845–855 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Akalal, D. B. G., Yu, D. & Davis, R. L. The long-term memory trace formed in the Drosophila α/β mushroom body neurons is abolished in long-term memory mutants. J. Neurosci. 31, 5643–5647 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Liu, X. & Davis, R. L. The GABAergic anterior paired lateral neuron suppresses and is suppressed by olfactory learning. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 53–59 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Wang, Y., Mamiya, A., Chiang, A. S. & Zhong, Y. Imaging of an early memory trace in the Drosophila mushroom body. J. Neurosci. 28, 4368–4376 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Aso, Y. et al. The neuronal architecture of the mushroom body provides a logic for associative learning. eLife 3, e04577 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Frankland, P. W., Josselyn, S. A. & Köhler, S. The neurobiological foundation of memory retrieval. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1576–1585 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Liu, X. et al. Optogenetic stimulation of a hippocampal engram activates fear memory recall. Nature 484, 381–385 (2012).

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Plaçais, P. Y. et al. Upregulated energy metabolism in the Drosophila mushroom body is the trigger for long-term memory. Nat. Commun. 8, 15510 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Cervantes-Sandoval, I., Phan, A., Chakraborty, M. & Davis, R. L. Reciprocal synapses between mushroom body and dopamine neurons form a positive feedback loop required for learning. eLife 6, e23789 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Cohn, R., Morantte, I. & Ruta, V. Coordinated and compartmentalized neuromodulation shapes sensory processing in Drosophila. Cell 163, 1742–1755 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Beck, C. D. O., Schroeder, B. & Davis, R. L. Learning performance of normal and mutant Drosophila after repeated conditioning trials with discrete stimuli. J. Neurosci. 20, 2944–2953 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Walkinshaw, E. et al. Identification of genes that promote or inhibit olfactory memory formation in Drosophila. Genetics 199, 1173–1182 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Noyes, N. C., Walkinshaw, E. & Davis, R. L. Ras acts as a molecular switch between two forms of consolidated memory in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2133–2139 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    McGuire, S. E., Mao, Z. & Davis, R. L. Spatiotemporal gene expression targeting with the TARGET and gene-switch systems in Drosophila. Sci. STKE 2004, pl6 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by NIH grant 5R35NS098224 to R.L.D. and F31MH123022 to J.M.S. We thank Janelia Research for providing split-gal4 lines and all other colleagues who have supplied Drosophila stocks, as well as past and current members of the Davis laboratory for their constructive conversation and criticism.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.M.S. planned and performed all behavioural experiments, data analysis and interpretation, and figure design, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. J.A.B. helped to plan experiments, performed all in vivo imaging and contributed to data interpretation and manuscript writing. R.L.D. acquired funding, helped with planning experiments, supervised the overall execution of the project, provided feedback on data interpretation and edited the manuscript along with J.M.S. and J.A.B.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald L. Davis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Kaoru Inokuchi and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Dose-dependent suppression of LTM.

ac, Conditioned wild-type (Canton-S) flies were exposed to distracting stimuli of increasing potency: airflow (a), electric shock (b) or blue light (c), terminating 1 min before a 72-h memory retrieval test. Box-and-whisker plots show the range of individual data points, with the interquartile spread as the box and the median as the line bisecting each box. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001; n = 8 (ac), one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s test. Exact P values and comparisons are shown in Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Fig. 2 PPL1 DAN bidirectionally modulate PSD-LTM expressed at 72 h.

a, Schematic illustrating the PPL1 DAN cluster (TH-D′-gal4) that innervates five subcompartments of the mushroom body neuropil. b, c, Seventy-two-hour PSD-LTM without (b) or with (c) a manipulation of PPL1 DAN activity. Stimulation (TH-D′>TrpA1) decreased, whereas synaptic blockade (TH-D′>Shibire) enhanced, the expression of PSD-LTM. Box-and-whisker plots show the range of individual data points, with the interquartile spread as the box and the median as the line bisecting each box. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001; n = 9 (b, c), two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test. Exact P values and comparisons are shown in Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Mapping the phenotype of impaired expression of PSD-LTM to a single DAN.

PPL1 DAN screen using split-gal4 lines and uas-TrpA1 to stimulate discrete DAN subpopulations. Stimulating PPL1-α2α′2 significantly decreased the expression of PSD-LTM when tested at 72 h. Other neurons from the PPL1 cluster did not impair expression of PSD-LTM. Box-and-whisker plots show the range of individual data points, with the interquartile spread as the box and the median as the line bisecting each box. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001; n = 12, two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test. Exact P values and comparisons are shown in Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Multiple epochs of TrpA1 stimulation extend the suppression of memory expression.

a, Memory rapidly recovered after a brief bout of TrpA1 stimulation. b, Retention of PSD-LTM across 14 d, after spaced conditioning without PPL1-α2α′2 stimulation. c, Expression of PSD-LTM was significantly dampened at 3 d after a single 6-h bout of TrpA1 stimulation, but resurfaced at 6 d. d, Three 6-h-spaced TrpA1 stimulations prolonged the memory expression deficit to 10 d, but expression of PSD-LTM resurfaced at normal levels at 14 d. Box-and-whisker plots show the range of individual data points, with the interquartile spread as the box and the median as the line bisecting each box. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001; n = 8 (a), one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s post hoc test; n = 6 (b), n = 12 (c, d), two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test. Exact P values and comparisons are shown in Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Enhanced PSD-LTM of DAMB maps to α/β MBN.

a, Loss of DAMB (loss-of-function allele) elevated expression of PSD-LTM up to 14 d. Wild type, Canton-S. b, Pan-neuronal knockdown of DAMB increased 24-h PSD-LTM. The RNAi lines target nonoverlapping sites of DAMB that affect all transcript variants. Coding exons, green; noncoding exons, blue; introns, black line. NSyb-gal4>uas-RNAi, uas-dicer 2. RNAi no. 1: KK line. RNAi no. 2: GD line. RNAi no. 3: TRiP line. c, DAMB knockdown in α/β MBN enhanced 24-h LTM. Gal4>uas-RNAi(KK), uas-dicer 2. d, DAMB knockdown in the α/β MBN elevated PSD-LTM up to 14 d after spaced conditioning. C739-gal4>uas-RNAi(KK), uas-dicer 2. e, Functional reinstatement of DAMB restored PSD-LTM to normal levels. Wild type, Canton-S. f, DAMB RNAi knockdown and normalizing expression of PSD-LTM by differential spaced conditioning. C739-gal4, gal80ts>uas-RNAi, uas-dicer2. Box-and-whisker plots show the range of individual data points, with the interquartile spread as the box and the median as the line bisecting each box. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001; n = 9 (c), unpaired two-tailed Welch’s t-test; n = 12 (a, b, df), two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test. Exact P values and comparisons are shown in Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Robust 72-h-old PSD-LTM plasticity is formed in MBON-α2sc.

a, Blocking synaptic output (R34B02-lexA>lexAop-Shibire) from MBON-α2sc impaired retrieval of PSD-LTM. b, Schedule for training and imaging. c, MBON-α2sc dendrites imaged as the region of interest. d, Representative pseudocoloured images (scale bar, 10 μm) showing responses to octanol (OCT) or benzaldehyde (BEN) for naive, OCT+ (OCT as CS+), or BEN+ (BEN as CS+) flies. e, f, Response traces of group data and quantification for OCT+ (e) and BEN+ (f) conditioned flies relative to naive. Left, activity as a function of time with odour stimulation. Right, average response magnitude within the first 5 s of odour onset (duration of odour delivery). Calculations of the activity versus mean responses are provided in the Methods. The differential reflects the difference in odour response between CS+ and CS. Multiple spaced cycles generated increased calcium transients compared to naive flies, with OCT+ generating a more-potent differential than that of BEN+. g, Feeding schedule for cycloheximide before spaced conditioning and representative pseudocoloured images (scale bar, 10 μm) showing the effects of cycloheximide on odour responses. h, i, Cycloheximide+ blunted the OCT+ (h) or BEN+ (i) training-induced calcium transients, indicating that the differential represents a PSD-LTM trace. j, Training schedule and representative pseudocoloured images (scale bar, 10 μm) without (23 °C) or with (30 °C) a 6-h TrpA1 stimulation. Response traces and quantification are in Fig. 3b. Box-and-whisker plots show the range of individual data points, with the interquartile spread as the box and the median as the line bisecting each box. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001; n = 8 (a), two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test; n = 20 (e, naive), n = 21 (e, OCT+), n = 20 (f, naive), n = 20 (e, BEN+), n = 20 (h, i), unpaired two-tailed Mann–Whitney test (e, f, h, i). Imaging experiments (dj) were performed three independent times with proper controls present within each set. All activity traces, mean responses and representative images shown were reproducible. Exact P values and comparisons are shown in Supplementary Information.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Working model comparing permanent and transient forgetting.

Two forms of forgetting include permanent (red) and transient (orange) forgetting. Left, Permanent forgetting involves a PPL1 DAN that synapses onto the MBN-γ2α′1 compartment (red). The slow ongoing DAN activity after learning is transduced by the Gq-coupled DAMB receptor. This forgetting signal mobilizes the Scribble scaffolding complex and recruits Rac1, Pak3 and Cofilin to erode labile nonconsolidated memory. The cellular memory traces formed and stored in the following neuron (MBON-γ2α′1) are also eroded. This process can be exacerbated by enhanced sensory stimulation (+) or repressed by sleep or rest (−). Right, Transient forgetting incorporates a different PPL1 DAN (to that in permanent forgetting) that synapses onto the MBN-α2α′2 compartment (orange). This forgetting signal, transduced by DAMB, temporarily impairs the expression of consolidated PSD-LTM. The cellular memory traces stored in MBON-α2sc are not abolished after activating the forgetting pathway. This process can be triggered by interfering or distracting stimuli (+) to transiently block the retrieval of PSD-LTM.

Supplementary information

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table

This file contains Supplementary Table 1, showing reagents, behavioural control experiments and statistical analyses. Sheet number one lists the fly strains, reagents and equipment used in the study. Sheet number two contains the odour and shock avoidance across various genotypes and conditions. Sheets number three and four list the statistical comparisons for each experiment in the main and extended figures, respectively. Sheet number five details additional statistical comparisons (two-way ANOVA with repeated measures) to determine spontaneous recovery of memory.

Peer Review File

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sabandal, J.M., Berry, J.A. & Davis, R.L. Dopamine-based mechanism for transient forgetting. Nature (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03154-y

Download citation

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing