Cited by 3Neurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesIon Channels and Receptors

Evolution of taste processing shifts dietary preference

Open access
Bertolini, Enrico, Münch, Daniel, Pascual, Justine, Sgammeglia, Noemi, Bruzzone, Matteo, Ribeiro, Carlos, Auer, Thomas O.·2026·Nature

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Food choice is an important driver of speciation and invasion of novel ecological niches. However, we know little about the mechanisms leading to changes in dietary preference. Here we use three closely related species, Drosophila sechellia (Dsec), Drosophila simulans and Drosophila melanogaster, to study taste circuit 1 and food choice evolution. Dsec, a host specialist, feeds exclusively on a single fruit (Morinda citrifolia; noni), whereas the other two are generalists living on diverse diets 2. Using quantitative feeding assays, we recapitulate the preference for noni in Dsec and detect conserved sweet but altered bitter sensitivity by means of calcium imaging in peripheral taste neurons. Noni activates bitter-sensing neurons more strongly in Dsec than in the other two species owing to a small deletion in a single gustatory receptor. Using volumetric calcium imaging in the ventral brain 3, we show that instead of peripheral physiology, species-specific processing of noni and sucrose signals in sensorimotor circuits recapitulates differences in dietary preference. Our data indicate that altered food choice may not be explained by peripheral receptor changes alone but rather by modifications in how sensory information is transformed into feeding motor commands.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41586-025-09766-6

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Bertolini, E., Münch, D., Pascual, J., Sgammeglia, N., Bruzzone, M., Ribeiro, C., & Auer, T. O.
Affiliations
  • University of Fribourg (CH)
  • Champalimaud Foundation (PT)
Corresponding author
Auer, Thomas O.
Venue
Nature
Published
2025-11-26
Volume
649
Issue
8097
Pages
657-666
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W4416716987
Cited by
3
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Ion Channels and Receptors
Keywords
taste processing, food preferences, Drosophila sechellia, Drosophila simulans, Drosophila melanogaster, Morinda citrifolia, host specialization, sensorimotor circuits, calcium imaging, taste neurons, feeding behavior
MeSH terms
Drosophila simulans, Animals, Brain, Calcium, Diet, Drosophila, Drosophila melanogaster, Biological Evolution, Feeding Behavior, Female, Food Preferences, Fruit, Male, Species Specificity, Sucrose, Taste, Morinda, Taste Perception

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