Extended Data Fig. 9: The activity of α’/β’ap, but not α’/β’m, neurons is relevant for sleep after conditioning.
From: Availability of food determines the need for sleep in memory consolidation
(a) shibirets expression in α’/β’ap neurons has no effect on sleep post-training if flies are maintained at the permissive temperature (two-sided t-tests were performed for each genotype to compare trained and untrained groups, followed by Bonferroni correction; n ≥ 30). Controls related to Fig. 2(g). (b) and (c) A training-dependent increase in sleep bout length was prevented in flies in which α’/β’ap neurons were silenced (n ≥ 31). Temperature controls are shown in (c) (n ≥ 30) (two-sided Mann–Whitney U-tests were performed for each genotype to compare trained and untrained groups). (d) and (e) Trained flies expressing shibirets1 in α’/β’m neurons showed an enhancement in sleep even when moved to 32°C for 4 h post-training. The total amount of sleep in 0–4 h interval after training is quantified (n ≥ 32). Post-training sleep in experimental and control flies at the permissive temperature, 25°C, is shown in (e) (n ≥ 16) (two-sided t-tests were performed for each genotype to compare trained and untrained groups, followed by Bonferroni correction). (f) and (g) Silencing α’/β’m neurons does not prevent an increase in sleep bout length after training (n ≥ 32). Temperature controls are shown in (g) (n ≥ 16) (two-sided Mann–Whitney U-tests were performed for each genotype to compare trained and untrained groups). (h) Calcium/GFP signal in α’/β’m neurons was comparable between control and sleep-deprived flies when kept starved post-training (two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test; n ≥ 11). Representative images are shown, two independent experiments; Scale bar, 50 μm. Data are represented as mean ± s.e.m. Each data point depicts a single fly. Precise ‘n’ and ‘p’ values are in the Source Data. ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05.
