Drosophila quinaria species group

Last updated

Drosophila quinaria species group
Dinnubila4.tif
Drosophila innubila
Scientific classification OOjs UI icon edit-ltr.svg
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Diptera
Family: Drosophilidae
Subfamily: Drosophilinae
Genus: Drosophila
Subgenus: Drosophila
Species group: quinaria
Species [1] [2]

The Drosophila quinaria species group is a speciose lineage of mushroom-feeding flies studied for their specialist ecology, their parasites, population genetics, and the evolution of immune systems. Quinaria species are part of the Drosophila subgenus.

Contents

Mushroom-feeding ecology

The fly agaric Amanita muscaria 2006-10-25 Amanita muscaria crop.jpg
The fly agaric Amanita muscaria

Quinaria group species are commonly found on wild mushrooms, and can metabolize toxic compounds in Amanita mushrooms, [3] such as ibotenic acid and alpha-amanitin. [4] [5] Mushroom sites also host a number of natural enemies. For instance, as a consequence of their mushroom-feeding ecology, Quinaria species are frequently infected by nematodes of the genus Howardula . [6] Some Quinaria species are more or less susceptible to nematode parasitization, though the immunological reasons remain unclear. One possibility to explain this variance is differences in defensive bacterial symbionts. [7] However another could be natural resource use, as most eukaryotes are unable to withstand the toxins in Amanita mushrooms, and thus development in these toxic mushrooms protects the flies from parasitism. [5]

The ancestor of Quinaria species and related flies likely switched from a generalist ecology to become exclusively mushroom-feeders. From there, different mushroom-feeding lineages emerged, some of which reverted to feeding on decaying vegetation, [8] such as Drosophila quinaria . Understanding the evolutionary forces that promoted a mushroom-feeding lifestyle, or reversion back to a more generalist ecology, can help understand concepts such as speciation and genetics of adaptation.

Quinaria group species such as Drosophila falleni are attracted to mushroom sites by cuing in on specific odourants that are common in rotting mushrooms, such as 1-pentanol, 1-octen-3-ol, and 3-methyl-1-butanol. Compared to Drosophila melanogaster , D. falleni are attracted to far more specific cues from rotting mushrooms. When D. falleni are infected by Howardula nematodes, infected flies become more averse to acetate-containing compounds such as ethyl acetate or propyl acetate. Conversely, infected flies become more attracted to 1-nonanol. This observation ties behavioural change to infection status, specifically identifying compounds that the fly becomes more or less averse to. Comparisons between mushroom-feeding Drosophila and D. melanogaster, and also between mushroom-specific Howardula parasitic nematodes and generalist nematodes could yield insight into how host-pathogen interactions alter olfactory preferences. [9]

Systematics

Evidence from phylogenetic studies suggests that the Quinaria group may be paraphyletic, comprising two clades. However, different phylogenetic analysis methods yield different results, so the exact systematics of the Quinaria group are still not fully confirmed. [8] [6] [10]

Phylogeny

ASTRAL [11] phylogenetic cladogram topology from Scott Chialvo and colleagues (2019). [8]

  Drosophila immigrans species group

  Drosophila tripunctata species group

  Drosophila cardini species group

  Drosophila bizonata species group

  Drosophila testacea species group

  Drosophila angularis

  Drosophila brachynephros

  Drosophila phalerata

  Drosophila innubila

  Drosophila falleni

  Drosophila nigromaculata

  Drosophila magnaquinaria

  Drosophila subpalustris

  Drosophila palustris

  Drosophila deflecta

  Drosophila reflecta

  Drosophila guttifera

  Drosophila quinaria

  Drosophila recens

  Drosophila transversa

  Drosophila subquinaria

  Drosophila munda

  Drosophila tenebrosa

  Drosophila suboccidentalis

  Drosophila occidentalis

Quinaria species are related to the Drosophila cardini , Drosophila bizonata , and Drosophila testacea species groups. [8] Evolutionary studies in these various mushroom-feeding Drosophila have contributed to understanding how symbiotic bacteria can drastically affect host evolution, [12] the impact of various genetic elements in natural populations, [13] [14] and speciation. [15] [16]

Genetics and genomics

Various Quinaria group species have contributed to genetic studies in different fashions. So far the genomes of four Quinaria species, D. guttifera, D. innubila , D. quinaria, and D. palustris have been sequenced. Additional sequence data has been generated for Drosophila falleni and Drosophila phalerata . The genome of D. innubila was sequenced for a study in 2019, and boasts a very complete assembly rivalling that of the classic genetic model Drosophila melanogaster . [17] In September 2020, a study of Drosophila sex pheromone communication sequenced the genomes of D. quinaria, and D. palustris, as well as many outgroup lineages of the Quinaria species group. [18]

Gene regulation on the fly

A comparison of wing patterns in Drosophila quinaria species CompareWings2.tif
A comparison of wing patterns in Drosophila quinaria species

The patterning of Drosophila wings has long been of interest to evolutionary biologists as understanding the genetic changes underlying wing patterning helps understand how evolution can act to promote novel designs. Drosophila guttifera (the "Polka-dotted fruit fly") has conspicuous dot patterns on its wings made of black melanin. Different variations of these dot patterns occur in different Quinaria group species, ranging from only one melanin spot on the wing band at the anterior costal vein in D. innubila , to two wing band spots in D. phalerata , to conspicuous polka-dots in D. guttifera. One method to study these patterns has been to compare gene regulation amongst different Drosophila species. The Drosophila Wnt signalling pathway regulates wing development. In the Wnt pathway, the Wingless gene encodes a ligand involved in the local development of melanin synthesis in the wing. [19] Other genes in the Wnt signalling pathway such as yellow and ebony are also involved in melanin regulation. Studies in the major genetic model organism Drosophila melanogaster are how the Wnt signalling pathway was first suspected. These studies implicated genes such as Wingless in wing development through mutations in Wnt signalling and the Wingless gene. Following this, studies in different species such as Drosophila biarmipes and Drosophila guttifera revealed different patterns of yellow gene expression. [20] As a result of these comparative studies, and owing to its attractive wing patterning, D. guttifera is now used as a comparative model to understand gene network interactions amongst Wingless, yellow, and other Wnt signalling genes. Understanding how these networks cooperate to regulate wing patterning also helps scientists understand how gene regulatory networks work in other systems such as health or development. Using conspicuous patterns like polka dot distribution on wings makes understanding general principles of gene regulation more approachable.

In 2015, the genome of Drosophila guttifera was sequenced by the laboratory of Sean B. Carroll providing an answer on how different wing patterns emerge in this species. The authors found that additional copies of genetic switches called "enhancers" drives the polka-dot pattern on the wings of D. guttifera. [21] These enhancers were a subset of cis-regulatory elements. As such, new evolutionary patterns can arise without modifying the active gene, by instead modifying existing enhancer regions. This leads to different patterns of gene expression, in the case of D. guttifera, resulting in different patterning on its wings. [19]

Population genetics and speciation

Sympatric speciation, where reproductive isolation evolves within a population without the aid of geographic barriers. Sympatric Speciation Schematic.svg
Sympatric speciation, where reproductive isolation evolves within a population without the aid of geographic barriers.

Speciation describes when two populations diverge sufficiently such that they are considered different species, often because they can no longer successfully reproduce with one another. This process is intuitive for conspicuous examples such as ring species, wherein a population splits due to a geographical barrier such as a mountain range, leading to allopatric populations. However why species diverge when their geographic ranges overlap (sympatric speciation) is less understood.

The sister species Drosophila subquinaria and Drosophila recens overlap in geographic range and are capable of hybridization, meaning they can successfully reproduce with each other; [15] however the offspring are very sickly. Thus, these two species are almost fully reproductively isolated, despite overlapping in geographic range. One reason for this is behavioural, driven by pheromones. D. subquinaria females readily avoid mating with males from other species, but surprisingly D. subquinaria females also avoid mating with males from the same species in allopatric populations. However D. recens females do not distinguish between males from different populations. Pheromones in the cuticle of the males differ between geographic ranges of D. subquinaria, possibly explaining how females distinguish males from different populations. [15] The bacterial symbiont Wolbachia is common in populations of D. recens, and causes cytoplasmic incompatibility in crosses between D. recens males and D. subquinaria females. [22] This has led to D. subquinaria females in sympatry with Wolbachia-infected D. recens to be more choosy when making a mate choice, while D. subquinaria females that are not sympatric with D. recens do not make this distinction. [22]

The D. subquinaria species complex is made all the more challenging to interpret by continued gene flow between D. recens and D. subquinaria. [23] Beyond these two species, Drosophila transversa is also capable of hybridization with both D. subquinaria and D. recens. [24] Ginsberg and colleagues [25] showed that the direction of gene flow is biased from D. recens into sympatric populations of D. subquinaria. This is likely due to increased one-directional mating success between D. recens females and D. subquinaria males in sympatry, but may also depend on the efficiency with which the D. recens X chromosome acts in a D. subquinaria genetic background. [25] [26]

There is also a sex ratio-distorting X chromosome in D. recens that may factor in to both speciation between D. recens and D. subquinaria, and selection on D. recens populations more generally. This selfish X chromosome is one of a number of selfish genetic elements in the Quinaria and Testacea Drosophila species groups. [13] [14] [27] In D. recens, females with two copies of the selfish X are sterile, while males have reduced fertility. These deleterious effects are offset by the transmission advantage that the X chromosome has in males, where it kills off all Y-bearing sperm, leaving that male to sire only selfish X-bearing daughters, which in turn produce more sons that will again sire only daughters. [27]

Much of the work characterizing subquinaria-recens speciation is built on a body of work initiated in the 1970s by John Jaenike and fellow researchers. [28] [29]

Microbial symbiosis

Symbiosis refers to the interactions amongst living organisms. These interactions can range from parasitism to mutual benefit. Often whether something should be considered a parasite or a beneficial symbiont is context-dependent. For instance, reproductive manipulators like Spiroplasma bacteria can kill their hosts sperm to benefit the symbiont at the cost of the host. But these same bacteria can defend the host against immune challenge by parasites.

Endosymbionts

Bacterial endosymbionts are bacteria that live inside host compartments like inside host cells or in the blood. Endosymbionts are widespread in insects. The bacterial symbiont Wolbachia infects anywhere from 20 to 70% of all insects, while Spiroplasma is found in ~10% of Drosophila. These endosymbionts can have a number of different consequences from cytoplasmic incompatibility, male-killing, feminization, or defensive symbiosis. [30] [31]

Transmission electron micrograph of Wolbachia bacteria in an insect cell. Wolbachia.png
Transmission electron micrograph of Wolbachia bacteria in an insect cell.

Wolbachia

Wolbachia is the most widespread of bacterial endosymbionts in insects and arthropods. Wolbachia bacteria are distant relatives of mitochondria, and like mitochondria, live inside host cells. Also like mitochondria, Wolbachia are inherited through females, so sons and daughters inherit Wolbachia almost exclusively from their mothers. Wolbachia are also commonly referred to as reproductive parasites. In different insects and arthropods, Wolbachia manipulate host reproduction to increase the number of females in the population. This benefits the Wolbachia as they are passed on from mothers to their offspring. [32]

Drosophila recens is commonly infected with a Wolbachia bacterial endosymbiont that causes cytoplasmic incompatibility. Females infected with this Wolbachia can readily mate with any male, regardless of the male's Wolbachia infection status. However uninfected females cannot mate with infected males. As such, Wolbachia infection in the population puts uninfected females at a mating disadvantage, as some proportion of their matings will not produce offspring. Moreover, the uninfected females invest resources into developing non-viable eggs, further reducing the reproductive fitness of uninfected females. [15] Wolbachia from Drosophila capable of cytoplasmic incompatibility are being explored for their potential to introduce laboratory-reared organisms for biocontrol, such as mosquitoes that do not transmit dengue virus, the causative agent of dengue fever. [33]

Drosophila innubila is a species commonly infected with a Wolbachia bacterial endosymbiont that causes male-killing. Male-killing results in the offspring of flies being entirely female, the biological sex with the higher reproductive output. Thus, while this reduces the number of viable eggs an infected female can produce, this Wolbachia spreads in the population owing to the increased reproductive output of females when compared to males. Female flies lay hundreds of eggs over their lifespan, and can store sperm in a specialized organ called the spermatheca. Thus, females do not need to mate repeatedly to successfully produce eggs. Meanwhile, males first have to successfully mate with a female, and then also win battles against other males through sperm competition, which is a prominent example of sexual selection. [34]

Drosophila innubila is also commonly infected by the double-stranded DNA virus Drosophila innubila nudivirus (DiNV), the consequences of which are unknown. [35] It has been shown that certain Wolbachia can protect their hosts against viral infection, even leading to biocontrol strategies that use Wolbachia infection to suppress the spread of viral diseases. [36] What role (if any) Wolbachia plays in defence against DiNV is unclear.

Spiroplasma

Spiroplasma sp. are inherited bacterial symbionts that protect flies from parasites like wasps or nematodes. [37] So far, Spiroplasma has been recovered from one Quinaria group species, Drosophila tenebrosa . While Spiroplasma of Drosophila flies typically derive from the poulsonii or citri clades, the Spiroplasma of D. tenebrosa is highly divergent and currently classified in its own clade. While Spiroplasma of Drosophila melanogaster can also exhibit male-killing, the D. tenebrosa Spiroplasma did not. [38] It is possible that this Spiroplasma defends D. tenebrosa against parasites, as horizontal gene transfer of defensive genes amongst Spiroplasmas of mushroom-feeding flies has been observed, even amongst different Spiroplasma clades that infect very different groups of flies. [39]

The gut microbiome

Colorized electron micrograph of a probiotic Lactobacillus species Lactobacillus paracasei.jpg
Colorized electron micrograph of a probiotic Lactobacillus species

How animals select and shape their microbiota is of great interest to a number of research fields, particularly for the implications on human and animal health. [40] As a powerful model organism for genetics, the gut microbiome of D. melanogaster has been researched extensively. Common species in this microbiome include Lactobacillus plantarum and Acetobacter species, which are highly beneficial for the fly's development.

No bacterial species are common amongst 100% of Drosophila species though a few species are present in many of the gut microbiomes of Drosophila screened so far. [41] [42] While most Quinaria species feed on rotting mushrooms rife with bacteria, the gut microbiome of these mushroom-feeding flies differs drastically in composition from the bacterial communities on the mushrooms they visit. This suggests the host fly can selectively incorporate beneficial bacteria into its gut microbiome, and reject non-beneficial bacteria. [43] The mechanism behind how mushroom-feeding flies can selectively maintain their gut microbiota despite feeding on rotting mushroom is still unclear. Comparisons between the associations of other Drosophila and Quinaria group species may yield insight into both the host and bacterial mechanisms necessary for establishing a stable bacterial community.

Immunity

Mushroom-feeding Drosophila are commonly infested by nematodes and parasitic wasps. These pose important challenges for the host immune system with significant impacts on fitness and fertility. [6]

Parasitic infection

Dissected Drosophila falleni infected with Howardula aoronymphium nematodes

Many Quinaria group species are infected by parasitic nematodes of the genus Howardula , [6] especially Howardula aoronymphium . Infection by these nematodes can sterilize flies, or alter their olfactory preferences. [9] Some Quinaria group species are more or less susceptible to different nematode parasites. For instance, D. falleni and D. neotestacea are sterilized by Howardula aoronymphium nematodes, while related species resist infection. [6] This sterilization is associated with reduced expression of genes involved in egg development, and increases in cuticle synthesis pathways. [44] Mushroom-feeding Drosophila are used as a model for understanding the genetic basis of nematode susceptibility or resistance, which may lead to a better understanding of how the innate immune system responds to nematode parasites. Of note, while Drosophila melanogaster has an extremely well-characterized immune system and boasts powerful genetic tools, no nematode parasite naturally infects D. melanogaster. This has hampered the use of Drosophila as a model for interactions between nematodes and the innate immune system. [44] [45]

Mushroom-feeding Drosophila are also frequently parasitized by parasitoid wasps such as Leptopilina sp. . These wasps infest the fly larva by inserting their ovipositor into the larva and depositing an egg internally. The wasp larvae hatch within the host, and remain relatively benign until fly pupation. This is because the wasp larva requires the fly larva to develop to the point of pupation so the wasp itself can metamorphose within the puparium in place of the fly. This process ultimately kills the fly, which is devoured by the developing wasp. Parasitic wasps also frequently inject toxins or even virus-like particles alongside their eggs that suppress the host immune response to increase the success of the wasp larva. [46] [47] In response, the fly immune system attempts to encapsulate invading wasp larva and attacks them using the insect melanization response. In D. melanogaster, specialized blood cells called lamellocytes that regulate local melanin synthesis during capsule formation. [48] However these blood cells are absent in other Drosophila species. [49] Despite this, these other Drosophila can nonetheless suppress wasp development through unknown immune mechanisms, though susceptibility varies by species of fly and species of wasp. In some species, the bacterial symbiont Spiroplasma protects related mushroom-feeding Drosophila from wasp parasitization using toxins that selectively kill the wasp larva but not the host fly, an interaction well-characterized using comparisons between Spiroplasma from D. melanogaster and the mushroom-feeding Drosophila neotestacea . [50]

Different mite parasites are also common at mushroom sites. Mites are external parasites that latch onto the fly abdomen and feed on the hemolymph. Mite bites or parasitic wasp stings are a natural mechanism to introduce infections. They may also serve as a mechanism to introduce and distribute bacterial endosymbionts between different fly species. [51]

Immune response

The genome of D. innubila was sequenced in 2019, and highlighted the importance of the interaction between D. innubila and its viruses as implied by patterns of immune evolution in antiviral genes. Notably, natural selection on the immunity and antiviral pathways in D. innubila differ markedly from D. melanogaster, implying divergent evolutionary pressures. [17] The D. innubila DNA nudivirus (DiNV) is similar to the D. melanogaster Kallithea virus . [52] As such, comparisons between D. melanogaster and D. innubila and their viruses promise to inform on the nature of host-virus interactions. [17]

The antimicrobial peptide gene Diptericin B has been pseudogenized in two independent lineages of mushroom-feeding fruit flies: the Quinaria group species Drosophila guttifera and the more distantly related Drosophila neotestacea . [53] Diptericin B is conserved in all other Drosophila species, yet these two pseudogenization events in mushroom-breeding flies were independent, suggesting Diptericin B is actively lost in these species. However Diptericin B is retained in Drosophila innubila , and remains transcriptionally active. It also seems that unrelated Tephritid fruit flies have independently derived a Diptericin gene strikingly similar to the DrosophilaDiptericin B gene. These evolutionary patterns in mushroom-breeding Drosophila and other fruit flies suggests that the immune system's effectors (like antimicrobial peptides) are directly shaped by host ecology. [54]

Diptericins are important immune molecules in defence against Providencia bacteria, [55] [56] and Diptericin B has also been shown to affect memory formation in Drosophila melanogaster. [57] The loss of Diptericin B in these mushroom-breeding flies implies that this immune molecule is unimportant for the ecology of mushroom-feeding flies, but somehow important for other fruit flies in the genus Drosophila . [54]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Drosophila</i> Genus of flies

Drosophila is a genus of flies, belonging to the family Drosophilidae, whose members are often called "small fruit flies" or pomace flies, vinegar flies, or wine flies, a reference to the characteristic of many species to linger around overripe or rotting fruit. They should not be confused with the Tephritidae, a related family, which are also called fruit flies ; tephritids feed primarily on unripe or ripe fruit, with many species being regarded as destructive agricultural pests, especially the Mediterranean fruit fly.

<i>Wolbachia</i> Genus of bacteria in the Alphaproteobacteria class

Wolbachia is a genus of intracellular bacteria that infects mainly arthropod species, including a high proportion of insects, and also some nematodes. It is one of the most common parasitic microbes, and is possibly the most common reproductive parasite in the biosphere. Its interactions with its hosts are often complex, and in some cases have evolved to be mutualistic rather than parasitic. Some host species cannot reproduce, or even survive, without Wolbachia colonisation. One study concluded that more than 16% of neotropical insect species carry bacteria of this genus, and as many as 25 to 70% of all insect species are estimated to be potential hosts.

<i>Spiroplasma</i> Genus of bacteria

Spiroplasma is a genus of Mollicutes, a group of small bacteria without cell walls. Spiroplasma shares the simple metabolism, parasitic lifestyle, fried-egg colony morphology and small genome of other Mollicutes, but has a distinctive helical morphology, unlike Mycoplasma. It has a spiral shape and moves in a corkscrew motion. Many Spiroplasma are found either in the gut or haemolymph of insects where they can act to manipulate host reproduction, or defend the host as endosymbionts. Spiroplasma are also disease-causing agents in the phloem of plants. Spiroplasmas are fastidious organisms, which require a rich culture medium. Typically they grow well at 30 °C, but not at 37 °C. A few species, notably Spiroplasma mirum, grow well at 37 °C, and cause cataracts and neurological damage in suckling mice. The best studied species of spiroplasmas are Spiroplasma poulsonii, a reproductive manipulator and defensive insect symbiont, Spiroplasma citri, the causative agent of citrus stubborn disease, and Spiroplasma kunkelii, the causative agent of corn stunt disease.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Animal testing on invertebrates</span> Overview article

Most animal testing involves invertebrates, especially Drosophila melanogaster, a fruit fly, and Caenorhabditis elegans, a nematode. These animals offer scientists many advantages over vertebrates, including their short life cycle, simple anatomy and the ease with which large numbers of individuals may be studied. Invertebrates are often cost-effective, as thousands of flies or nematodes can be housed in a single room.

Immigrans-tripunctata radiation Species group of the subgenus Drosophila

The immigrans-tripunctata radiation is a speciose lineage of Drosophila flies, including over 300 species. The immigrans-tripunctata radiation is a sister lineage to most other members of the subgenus Drosophila. A number of species have had their genomes or transcriptomes sequenced for evolutionary studies using Drosophila.

<i>Drosophila hydei</i> Species of fly

Drosophila hydei (mosca casera) is a species of Diptera, or the order of flies, in the family Drosophilidae. It is a species in the hydei species subgroup, a group in the repleta species group. Bizarrely, it is also known for having approximately 23 mm long sperm, 10 times the length of the male's body. Drosophila hydei are commonly found on compost piles worldwide, and can be rudimentarily identified by eye owing to their large size and variegated pigment pattern on the thorax. The name derives from Dr R. R. Hyde, who first discovered that the species was distinct from Drosophila repleta. D. hydei are one of the more popular flies used as feeders in the pet trade. A few varieties are available, some flightless. They are very similar to Drosophila melanogaster, despite having separated 50 million years ago.

<i>Drosophila falleni</i> Species of fly

.

<i>Drosophila guttifera</i> Species of fly

Drosophila guttifera is a species of vinegar fly in the Drosophila quinaria species group. Like many quinaria group species, D. guttifera feeds on rotting mushrooms.

<i>Howardula aoronymphium</i> Species of roundworm

Howardula aoronymphium is a species of nematode that infects specialist mushroom-feeding fruit flies such as Drosophila falleni and Drosophila neotestacea. Mated female nematodes pierce the fly larva cuticle and take up residence in the hemolymph where they mature alongside the fly. When the adult fly ecloses, the nematode motherworm has reached full size and sheds juvenile nematodes into the hemolymph which are eventually excreted by either the fly anus or ovipositor. Howardula nematodes can severely impact fly egg development, as infection can effectively sterilize some species.

<i>Drosophila neotestacea</i> Species of fly

Drosophila neotestacea is a member of the testacea species group of Drosophila. Testacea species are specialist fruit flies that breed on the fruiting bodies of mushrooms. These flies will choose to breed on psychoactive mushrooms such as the Fly Agaric Amanita muscaria. Drosophila neotestacea can be found in temperate regions of North America, ranging from the north eastern United States to western Canada.

<i>Drosophila testacea</i> Species of fly

Drosophila testacea is a member of the testacea species group of Drosophila. Testacea species are specialist fruit flies that breed on the fruiting bodies of mushrooms. Drosophila testacea can be found in temperate regions of Europe, extending to east Asia. Drosophila testacea and Drosophila orientacea can produce viable hybrids, though they are separated by geography and behavioural barriers. Drosophila testacea females will also readily mate with Drosophila neotestacea males, but viable hybrids are never produced. This hybrid inviability ) may be due to selfish X chromosomes and co-evolved suppressors. Alternately, differences in sex pheromone reception could underlie female readiness and male willingness to copulate.

<i>Drosophila testacea</i> species group Species group of the subgenus Drosophila

The Drosophila testacea species group belongs to the Immigrans-tripunctata radiation of the subgenus Drosophila, and contains 4 species: Drosophila putrida, Drosophila neotestacea, Drosophila testacea, and Drosophila orientacea. Testacea species are specialist mushroom-feeding flies, and can metabolize toxic compounds in Amanita mushrooms. The Testacea species group is studied for its specialist ecology, population genetics, and bacterial endosymbionts. The North American species Drosophila neotestacea is perhaps the best-studied of the group for its interactions with parasitic wasps and nematodes, bacterial endosymbionts, and trypanosomatid parasites. Of note, selfish X chromosomes have been discovered in three of the four Testacea group species.

Spiroplasma poulsonii are bacteria of the genus Spiroplasma that are commonly endosymbionts of flies. These bacteria live in the hemolymph of the flies, where they can act as reproductive manipulators or defensive symbionts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diptericin</span>

Diptericin is a 9 kDa antimicrobial peptide (AMP) of flies first isolated from the blowfly Phormia terranova. It is primarily active against Gram-negative bacteria, disrupting bacterial membrane integrity. The structure of this protein includes a proline-rich domain with similarities to the AMPs drosocin, pyrrhocoricin, and abaecin, and a glycine-rich domain with similarity to attacin. Diptericin is an iconic readout of immune system activity in flies, used ubiquitously in studies of Drosophila immunity. Diptericin is named after the insect order Diptera.

Mushroom-feeding <i>Drosophila</i> Species group of the subgenus Drosophila

Mushroom-feeding Drosophila are a subset of Drosophila flies that have highly specific mushroom-breeding ecologies. Often these flies can tolerate toxic compounds from Amanita mushrooms.

<i>Drosophila innubila</i> Species of fly

Drosophila innubila is a species of vinegar fly restricted to high-elevation woodlands in the mountains of the southern USA and Mexico, which it likely colonized during the last glacial period. Drosophila innubila is a kind of mushroom-breeding Drosophila, and member of the Drosophila quinaria species group. Drosophila innubila is best known for its association with a strain of male-killing Wolbachia bacteria. These bacteria are parasitic, as they drain resources from the host and cause half the infected female's eggs to abort. However Wolbachia may offer benefits to the fly's fitness in certain circumstances. The D. innubila genome was sequenced in 2019.

Jaenimonas drosophilae is a trypanosomatid parasite of mushroom-feeding flies, first characterized in Drosophila neotestacea and Drosophila falleni. Jaenimonas takes up residence in the gut of the fly, and infection leads to reduced fecundity of its fly host. The species is named for John Jaenike, a prominent ecologist and evolutionary biologist whose work on mushroom-feeding flies laid the foundation for studies on mycophagous Drosophila.

Jaenimonas is a genus of trypanosomatid parasite that infects mushroom-feeding Drosophila, similar to Crithidia parasites of Bumblebees. Jaenimonas drosophilae is the sole representative of this genus. The genus is named in honor of John Jaenike, a prominent ecologist and evolutionary biologist whose work on mushroom-feeding flies laid the foundation for studies on mycophagous Drosophila. Jaenike was also an early proponent of the Red Queen hypothesis.

John Jaenike is an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, and currently a professor at the University of Rochester New York. Jaenike was an early proponent of the Red Queen Hypothesis, using the idea to explain the maintenance of sex. Jaenike is also known for his extensive work on mushroom-feeding Drosophila and the evolution of their inherited bacterial symbionts Wolbachia and Spiroplasma poulsonii.

<i>Drosophila phalerata</i> Species of fly

Drosophila phalerata is a species of mushroom-feeding fruit fly in the Drosophila quinaria species group. The genome of D. phalerata was sequenced in 2019 as part of a study on the evolution of immune systems, but was not assembled de novo.

References

  1. ↑ "FlyBase Archive Warning". fb2014_03.flybase.org. Retrieved 2019-04-18.
  2. ↑ Markow TA, O'Grady P (2005). Drosophila: A Guide to Species Identification and Use. Elsevier. ISBN   978-0-08-045409-2.[ page needed ]
  3. ↑ Jaenike, John (1978). "Host Selection by Mycophagous Drosophila". Ecology. 59 (6): 1286–1288. doi:10.2307/1938245. JSTOR   1938245.
  4. ↑ Tuno N, Takahashi KH, Yamashita H, Osawa N, Tanaka C (February 2007). "Tolerance of Drosophila flies to ibotenic acid poisons in mushrooms". Journal of Chemical Ecology. 33 (2): 311–7. doi:10.1007/s10886-006-9228-3. PMID   17195114. S2CID   5625446.
  5. 1 2 Scott Chialvo, Clare H.; Werner, Thomas (2018). "Drosophila, destroying angels, and deathcaps! Oh my! A review of mycotoxin tolerance in the genus Drosophila". Frontiers in Biology. 13 (2): 91–102. doi:10.1007/s11515-018-1487-1. ISSN   1674-7984. S2CID   47019693.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Perlman SJ, Jaenike J (March 2003). "Infection success in novel hosts: an experimental and phylogenetic study of Drosophila-parasitic nematodes". Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution. 57 (3): 544–57. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb01546.x . PMID   12703944. S2CID   20459223.
  7. ↑ Jaenike J, Unckless R, Cockburn SN, Boelio LM, Perlman SJ (July 2010). "Adaptation via symbiosis: recent spread of a Drosophila defensive symbiont". Science. 329 (5988): 212–5. Bibcode:2010Sci...329..212J. doi:10.1126/science.1188235. PMID   20616278. S2CID   206526012.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Scott Chialvo CH, White BE, Reed LK, Dyer KA (January 2019). "A phylogenetic examination of host use evolution in the quinaria and testacea groups of Drosophila". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 130: 233–243. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2018.10.027. PMC   6327841 . PMID   30366088.
  9. 1 2 Cevallos JA, Okubo RP, Perlman SJ, Hallem EA (April 2017). "Olfactory Preferences of the Parasitic Nematode Howardula aoronymphium and its Insect Host Drosophila falleni". Journal of Chemical Ecology. 43 (4): 362–373. doi:10.1007/s10886-017-0834-z. PMC   5673469 . PMID   28315996.
  10. ↑ Izumitani HF, Kusaka Y, Koshikawa S, Toda MJ, Katoh T (27 July 2016). "Phylogeography of the Subgenus Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae): Evolutionary History of Faunal Divergence between the Old and the New Worlds". PLOS ONE. 11 (7): e0160051. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1160051I. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160051 . PMC   4962979 . PMID   27462734.
  11. ↑ Zhang C, Rabiee M, Sayyari E, Mirarab S (May 2018). "ASTRAL-III: polynomial time species tree reconstruction from partially resolved gene trees". BMC Bioinformatics. 19 (Suppl 6): 153. doi:10.1186/s12859-018-2129-y. PMC   5998893 . PMID   29745866.
  12. ↑ Hamilton PT, Peng F, Boulanger MJ, Perlman SJ (January 2016). "A ribosome-inactivating protein in a Drosophila defensive symbiont". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 113 (2): 350–5. Bibcode:2016PNAS..113..350H. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1518648113 . PMC   4720295 . PMID   26712000.
  13. 1 2 Pinzone CA, Dyer KA (October 2013). "Association of polyandry and sex-ratio drive prevalence in natural populations of Drosophila neotestacea". Proceedings. Biological Sciences. 280 (1769): 20131397. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.1397. PMC   3768301 . PMID   24004936.
  14. 1 2 Keais GL, Hanson MA, Gowen BE, Perlman SJ (June 2017). "X chromosome drive in a widespread Palearctic woodland fly, Drosophila testacea". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 30 (6): 1185–1194. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13089 . PMID   28402000.
  15. 1 2 3 4 Humphreys DP, Rundle HD, Dyer KA (April 2016). "Drosophila subquinaria complex: can reinforced premating isolation cascade to other species?". Current Zoology. 62 (2): 183–191. doi:10.1093/cz/zow005. PMC   5804228 . PMID   29491905.
  16. ↑ Jaenike J, James AC, Grimaldi D (1 November 1992). "Systematics and Modes of Reproductive Isolation in the Holarctic Drosophila testacea Species Group (Diptera: Drosophilidae)". Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 85 (6): 671–685. doi:10.1093/aesa/85.6.671.
  17. 1 2 3 Hill T, Koseva BS, Unckless RL (July 2019). "The Genome of Drosophila innubila Reveals Lineage-Specific Patterns of Selection in Immune Genes". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 36 (7): 1405–1417. doi:10.1093/molbev/msz059. PMC   6573480 . PMID   30865231.
  18. ↑ Khallaf, Mohammed (2020). "Large-scale characterization of sex pheromone communication systems in Drosophila". BioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/2020.09.21.305854 . hdl: 21.11116/0000-0007-0F53-C . S2CID   221953091 . Retrieved October 4, 2020.
  19. 1 2 Koshikawa S, Fukutomi Y, Matsumoto K (2017). "Drosophila guttifera as a Model System for Unraveling Color Pattern Formation". Diversity and Evolution of Butterfly Wing Patterns. pp. 287–301. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4956-9_16. ISBN   978-981-10-4955-2. S2CID   91011885.
  20. ↑ Gompel N, Prud'homme B, Wittkopp PJ, Kassner VA, Carroll SB (February 2005). "Chance caught on the wing: cis-regulatory evolution and the origin of pigment patterns in Drosophila". Nature. 433 (7025): 481–7. Bibcode:2005Natur.433..481G. doi:10.1038/nature03235. PMID   15690032. S2CID   16422483.
  21. ↑ Koshikawa S, Giorgianni MW, Vaccaro K, Kassner VA, Yoder JH, Werner T, Carroll SB (June 2015). "Gain of cis-regulatory activities underlies novel domains of wingless gene expression in Drosophila". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 112 (24): 7524–9. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.7524K. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1509022112 . PMC   4475944 . PMID   26034272.
  22. 1 2 Jaenike J, Dyer KA, Cornish C, Minhas MS (October 2006). "Asymmetrical reinforcement and Wolbachia infection in Drosophila". PLOS Biology. 4 (10): e325. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040325. PMC   1592313 . PMID   17032063.
  23. ↑ Ginsberg, Paul S.; Humphreys, Devon P.; Dyer, Kelly A. (2019). "Ongoing hybridization obscures phylogenetic relationships in the Drosophila subquinaria species complex". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 32 (10): 1093–1105. doi:10.1111/jeb.13512. ISSN   1010-061X. PMC   6783338 . PMID   31385638.
  24. ↑ Shoemaker DD, Katju V, Jaenike J (August 1999). "Wolbachia and the Evolution of Reproductive Isolation Between Drosophila Recens and Drosophila Subquinaria". Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution. 53 (4): 1157–1164. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1999.tb04529.x. PMID   28565520. S2CID   31338655.
  25. 1 2 Ginsberg PS, Humphreys DP, Dyer KA (October 2019). "Ongoing hybridization obscures phylogenetic relationships in the Drosophila subquinaria species complex". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 32 (10): 1093–1105. doi:10.1111/jeb.13512. PMC   6783338 . PMID   31385638.
  26. ↑ Dyer KA, Bewick ER, White BE, Bray MJ, Humphreys DP (August 2018). "Fine-scale geographic patterns of gene flow and reproductive character displacement in Drosophila subquinaria and Drosophila recens". Molecular Ecology. 27 (18): 3655–3670. doi:10.1111/mec.14825. PMC   6360132 . PMID   30074656.
  27. 1 2 Dyer, Kelly A.; Hall, David W. (2019-12-18). "Fitness consequences of a non-recombining sex-ratio drive chromosome can explain its prevalence in the wild". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 286 (1917): 20192529. doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.2529. ISSN   0962-8452. PMC   6939924 . PMID   31847762.
  28. ↑ "FlyTree - John Jaenike Family Tree". academictree.org. Retrieved 2019-04-18.
  29. ↑ Jaenike J (September 1978). "Resource Predictability and Niche Breadth in the Drosophila quinaria Species Group". Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution. 32 (3): 676–678. doi:10.1111/J.1558-5646.1978.TB04613.X. JSTOR   2407734. PMID   28567956. S2CID   43186549.
  30. ↑ Hilgenboecker K, Hammerstein P, Schlattmann P, Telschow A, Werren JH (April 2008). "How many species are infected with Wolbachia?--A statistical analysis of current data". FEMS Microbiology Letters. 281 (2): 215–20. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01110.x. PMC   2327208 . PMID   18312577.
  31. ↑ Hamilton PT, Perlman SJ (26 December 2013). "Host defense via symbiosis in Drosophila". PLOS Pathogens. 9 (12): e1003808. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003808. PMC   3873448 . PMID   24385901.
  32. ↑ Bowman DD (November 2011). "Introduction to the alpha-proteobacteria: Wolbachia and Bartonella, Rickettsia, Brucella, Ehrlichia, and Anaplasma". Topics in Companion Animal Medicine. 26 (4): 173–7. doi:10.1053/j.tcam.2011.09.002. PMID   22152604.
  33. ↑ Callaway, Ewen (8 August 2018). "Dengue rates plummet in Australian city after release of modified mosquitoes". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-05914-3. S2CID   91696876.
  34. ↑ https://www.sas.rochester.edu/bio/people/faculty/jaenike_john/
  35. ↑ Hill T, Unckless RL (January 2018). "The dynamic evolution of Drosophila innubila Nudivirus". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 57: 151–157. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2017.11.013. PMC   5725240 . PMID   29155284.
  36. ↑ Hoffmann AA, Montgomery BL, Popovici J, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Johnson PH, Muzzi F, et al. (August 2011). "Successful establishment of Wolbachia in Aedes populations to suppress dengue transmission". Nature. 476 (7361): 454–7. Bibcode:2011Natur.476..454H. doi:10.1038/nature10356. PMID   21866160. S2CID   4316652.
  37. ↑ Haselkorn TS, Jaenike J (July 2015). "Macroevolutionary persistence of heritable endosymbionts: acquisition, retention and expression of adaptive phenotypes in Spiroplasma". Molecular Ecology. 24 (14): 3752–65. doi:10.1111/mec.13261. PMID   26053523. S2CID   206182327.
  38. ↑ Watts T, Haselkorn TS, Moran NA, Markow TA (May 2009). "Variable incidence of Spiroplasma infections in natural populations of Drosophila species". PLOS ONE. 4 (5): e5703. Bibcode:2009PLoSO...4.5703W. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005703 . PMC   2683927 . PMID   19492088.
  39. ↑ Ballinger MJ, Gawryluk RM, Perlman SJ (January 2019). "Toxin and Genome Evolution in a Drosophila Defensive Symbiosis". Genome Biology and Evolution. 11 (1): 253–262. doi:10.1093/gbe/evy272. PMC   6349354 . PMID   30576446.
  40. ↑ Mohajeri MH, Brummer RJ, Rastall RA, Weersma RK, Harmsen HJ, Faas M, Eggersdorfer M (May 2018). "The role of the microbiome for human health: from basic science to clinical applications". European Journal of Nutrition. 57 (Suppl 1): 1–14. doi:10.1007/s00394-018-1703-4. PMC   5962619 . PMID   29748817.
  41. ↑ Wong AC, Chaston JM, Douglas AE (October 2013). "The inconstant gut microbiota of Drosophila species revealed by 16S rRNA gene analysis". The ISME Journal. 7 (10): 1922–32. doi:10.1038/ismej.2013.86. PMC   3965314 . PMID   23719154.
  42. ↑ Pais IS, Valente RS, Sporniak M, Teixeira L (July 2018). "Drosophila melanogaster establishes a species-specific mutualistic interaction with stable gut-colonizing bacteria". PLOS Biology. 16 (7): e2005710. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2005710. PMC   6049943 . PMID   29975680.
  43. ↑ Martinson VG, Douglas AE, Jaenike J (May 2017). "Community structure of the gut microbiota in sympatric species of wild Drosophila". Ecology Letters. 20 (5): 629–639. doi: 10.1111/ele.12761 . PMID   28371064.
  44. 1 2 Hamilton PT, Leong JS, Koop BF, Perlman SJ (March 2014). "Transcriptional responses in a Drosophila defensive symbiosis" (PDF). Molecular Ecology. 23 (6): 1558–70. doi:10.1111/mec.12603. hdl:1828/8389. PMID   24274471. S2CID   2964885.
  45. ↑ Eleftherianos I, Castillo JC, Patrnogic J (December 2016). "TGF-β signaling regulates resistance to parasitic nematode infection in Drosophila melanogaster". Immunobiology. 221 (12): 1362–1368. doi:10.1016/j.imbio.2016.07.011. PMC   5075508 . PMID   27473342.
  46. ↑ Colinet D, Dubuffet A, Cazes D, Moreau S, Drezen JM, Poirié M (May 2009). "A serpin from the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina boulardi targets the Drosophila phenoloxidase cascade". Developmental and Comparative Immunology. 33 (5): 681–9. doi:10.1016/j.dci.2008.11.013. PMID   19109990.
  47. ↑ Chiu H, Morales J, Govind S (February 2006). "Identification and immuno-electron microscopy localization of p40, a protein component of immunosuppressive virus-like particles from Leptopilina heterotoma, a virulent parasitoid wasp of Drosophila". The Journal of General Virology. 87 (Pt 2): 461–70. doi:10.1099/vir.0.81474-0. PMC   2705942 . PMID   16432035.
  48. ↑ Dudzic JP, Kondo S, Ueda R, Bergman CM, Lemaitre B (October 2015). "Drosophila innate immunity: regional and functional specialization of prophenoloxidases". BMC Biology. 13 (1): 81. doi:10.1186/s12915-015-0193-6. PMC   4595066 . PMID   26437768.
  49. ↑ Salazar-Jaramillo L, Paspati A, van de Zande L, Vermeulen CJ, Schwander T, Wertheim B (February 2014). "Evolution of a cellular immune response in Drosophila: a phenotypic and genomic comparative analysis". Genome Biology and Evolution. 6 (2): 273–89. doi:10.1093/gbe/evu012. PMC   3942026 . PMID   24443439.
  50. ↑ Ballinger MJ, Perlman SJ (July 2017). "Generality of toxins in defensive symbiosis: Ribosome-inactivating proteins and defense against parasitic wasps in Drosophila". PLOS Pathogens. 13 (7): e1006431. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1006431. PMC   5500355 . PMID   28683136.
  51. ↑ Gehrer L, Vorburger C (August 2012). "Parasitoids as vectors of facultative bacterial endosymbionts in aphids". Biology Letters. 8 (4): 613–5. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0144. PMC   3391472 . PMID   22417790.
  52. ↑ Webster CL, Waldron FM, Robertson S, Crowson D, Ferrari G, Quintana JF, et al. (July 2015). "The Discovery, Distribution, and Evolution of Viruses Associated with Drosophila melanogaster". PLOS Biology. 13 (7): e1002210. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002210. PMC   4501690 . PMID   26172158.
  53. ↑ Hanson MA, Hamilton PT, Perlman SJ (October 2016). "Immune genes and divergent antimicrobial peptides in flies of the subgenus Drosophila". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 16 (1): 228. doi:10.1186/s12862-016-0805-y. PMC   5078906 . PMID   27776480.
  54. 1 2 Hanson, Mark Austin; Lemaitre, Bruno; Unckless, Robert L. (2019). "Dynamic evolution of antimicrobial peptides underscores trade-offs between immunity and ecological fitness". Frontiers in Immunology. 10: 2620. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02620 . ISSN   1664-3224. PMC   6857651 . PMID   31781114.
  55. ↑ Unckless RL, Howick VM, Lazzaro BP (January 2016). "Convergent Balancing Selection on an Antimicrobial Peptide in Drosophila". Current Biology. 26 (2): 257–262. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.063. PMC   4729654 . PMID   26776733.
  56. ↑ Hanson MA, Dostálová A, Ceroni C, Poidevin M, Kondo S, Lemaitre B (February 2019). "Synergy and remarkable specificity of antimicrobial peptides in vivo using a systematic knockout approach". eLife. 8. doi:10.7554/eLife.44341. PMC   6398976 . PMID   30803481.
  57. ↑ Barajas-Azpeleta R, Wu J, Gill J, Welte R, Seidel C, McKinney S, et al. (October 2018). "Antimicrobial peptides modulate long-term memory". PLOS Genetics. 14 (10): e1007440. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007440. PMC   6224176 . PMID   30312294.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.