Cited by 924Neurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genetic dissection of consolidated memory in Drosophila

Tully, T., Preat, T., Boynton, S.C., Del Vecchio, M.·1994·Cell

Abstract

Behavioral and pharmacological experiments in many animal species have suggested that memory is consolidated from an initial, disruptable form into a long-lasting, stable form within a few hours after training. We combined these traditional approaches with genetic analyses in Drosophila to show that consolidated memory of conditioned (learned) odor avoidance 1 day after extended training consisted of two genetically distinct, functionally independent memory components: anesthesia-resistant memory (ARM) and long-term memory (LTM). ARM decayed away within 4 days, was resistant to hypothermic disruption, was insensitive to the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide (CXM), and was disrupted by the radish single-gene mutation. LTM showed no appreciable decay over 7 days, was sensitive to CXM, and was not disrupted by the radish mutation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90398-0

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Spaced 15-minute intervals were more effective than massed 1-minute intervals in inducing olfactory learning in Drosophila melanogaster, even given the same total training time.

    “Spaced (15-minute) intervals were more effective than massed (1-minute) intervals in inducing olfactory learning, even given the same total training time (and thus more massed presentations)63.”
  • Memory induced by repeated training improves when presentations are spaced over time compared to equal numbers of training exposures without spacing.

    “Memory that is induced by repeated training improves when presentations are spaced over time compared to equal numbers of training exposures without spacing.”

    From The Phosphatase SHP2 Regulates the Spacing Effect for Long-Term Memory Induction (2009) · cites this paper as Tully et al., 1994

  • Cold-shock treatment 2 hrs after training abolished the massed-training elicited memory enhancement in wild-type csw transgenic flies.

    “Second, we exposed these flies to a cold-shock treatment (2 min in ice water), to which ARM is resistant (Tully et al., 1994; DeZazzo and Tully, 1995), 2 hrs after training and found that it abolished the massed-training elicited memory enhancement (Figure 3D).”

    From The Phosphatase SHP2 Regulates the Spacing Effect for Long-Term Memory Induction (2009) · cites this paper as Tully et al., 1994

  • 4-hr memory elicited by one-trial training was normal in wild-type csw transgenic flies.

    “First, we examined 4-hr memory elicited by one-trial training, which comprises only ARM (Tully et al., 1994; DeZazzo and Tully, 1995), and observed that it was normal in these transgenic flies (Figure S10).”

    From The Phosphatase SHP2 Regulates the Spacing Effect for Long-Term Memory Induction (2009) · cites this paper as Tully et al., 1994

  • Ten consecutive learning sessions without rest (massed training) produce STM, MTM and an ARM that lasts for four days.

    “whereas ten consecutive learning sessions without rest in between (called massed training) produces STM, MTM and an ARM that lasts for four days.”

    From The Phosphatase SHP2 Regulates the Spacing Effect for Long-Term Memory Induction (2009) · cites this paper as Tully et al., 1994

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tully, T., Preat, T., Boynton, S. C., & Del Vecchio, M.
Affiliations
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (US)
  • Brandeis University (US)
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-10
Volume
79
Issue
1
Pages
35-47
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023796149
Cited by
924
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 34
FWCI
10.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (7r29ns025621-05, 2r01hd032245-04)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P01GM033205, P01GM-33205)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS-25621)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD-32245)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
memory consolidation, Drosophila, odor avoidance, long-term memory, memory decay, cycloheximide, protein synthesis, memory components
MeSH terms
Animals, Avoidance Learning, Brain Chemistry, Conditioning, Classical, Cycloheximide, Drosophila, Memory, Mutation, Genes, Insect

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review