2-other experiments

This is a 3-sheet excel file containing the data of the other three experiments included in the study: 1) the egg-laying test under different sexual harassment conditions; 2) the experiment testing how many female flies were on the correct oviposition medium during the sexual harassment assay; 3) the occurrence of sexual harassment during the assa

Experiment 1

latency to safe zone access (in seconds) in experiment 1

Experiment2

Experiment

number of flies (rover or sitters) on the refuge zone 1 or 2 as a function of time for homogenerous and mixed groups

number of flies (rover or sitters) on the refuge zone 1 or 2 as a function of time for homogenerous and mixed group

Flies' positions

This .zip file contains 10 positions per second for each fly collected during 62 experiments lasting 4 hours each one

Social Environment Influences Performance in a Cognitive Task in Natural Variants of the <i>Foraging</i> Gene

<div><p>In <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>, natural genetic variation in the <i>foraging</i> gene affects the foraging behaviour of larval and adult flies, larval reward learning, adult visual learning, and adult aversive training tasks. Sitters (<i>for</i>^s) are more sedentary and aggregate within food patches whereas rovers (<i>for^R</i>) have greater movement within and between food patches, suggesting that these natural variants are likely to experience different social environments. We hypothesized that social context would differentially influence rover and sitter behaviour in a cognitive task. We measured adult rover and sitter performance in a classical olfactory training test in groups and alone. All flies were reared in groups, but fly training and testing were done alone and in groups. Sitters trained and tested in a group had significantly higher learning performances compared to sitters trained and tested alone. Rovers performed similarly when trained and tested alone and in a group. In other words, rovers learning ability is independent of group training and testing. This suggests that sitters may be more sensitive to the social context than rovers. These differences in learning performance can be altered by pharmacological manipulations of PKG activity levels, the <i>foraging (for)</i> gene's gene product. Learning and memory is also affected by the type of social interaction (being in a group of the same strain or in a group of a different strain) in rovers, but not in sitters. These results suggest that <i>for</i> mediates social learning and memory in <i>D. melanogaster</i>.</p></div

Performance of rover and sitter adult <i>D. melanogaster</i> when trained and tested in groups or individually.

<p>Rover: group: PI = 0.34±0.03 N = 52 PI; alone: PI = 0.32±0.04 N = 34 PI; Sitter: group: PI = 0.21±0.02 N = 52 PI; alone: PI = 0.08±0.04 N = 34. Error bars represent ±SEM. Comparison between treatments. ns: P>0.05; *: P<0.05; **: P<0.01; ***: P<0.001.</p

Number of eggs laid by native and introduced Drosophila subobscura females during test phases after a learning task

Header consists in : Date (day of start of the experiment), Type ("I" = Introduced, "N" = Native population),Pop (Population of origin),Cond ("B/FQ" : learning phase to avoid strawberry, "BQ/F" : learning phase to avoid banana), Test (Number of test phase), milieu.B (number of eggs laid in banana medium), milieu.F (number of eggs laid in strawberry medium), tot (total number of eggs laid),propB (proportion of eggs laid in the banana medium), propG (proportion of eggs laid in the correct medium), Lat (Latitdue of the populaiton of origin)

Performance of individual naïve flies after pharmacological manipulation when placed into groups of conditioned flies during the test.

<p>Rover: Sham: PI = −0.18±0.06 N = 11 PI; PKG inhibitor: PI = −0.07±0.07 N = 11 PI. Sitter: Sham: PI = 0.02±0.11 N = 9 PI; PKG activator: PI = 0.02±0.08 N = 12 PI. Error bars represent ±SEM. Comparison between treatments. ns: P>0.05; *: P<0.05; **: P<0.01; ***: P<0.001.</p

Effects of group composition during testing.

<p>Flies were individually trained and then tested within a trained group of the same strain or a different strain. Rover: in rover: PI = 0.34±0.05 N = 7 PI; in sitter: PI = 0.58±0.03 N = 6 PI. Sitter: in sitter: PI = 0.05±0.15 N = 6 PI; in rover: PI = 0±0.14 N = 7 PI. Error bars represent ±SEM. Comparison between treatments. ns: P>0.05; *: P<0.05; **: P<0.01; ***: P<0.001.</p