1. Developmental Biology
  2. Genetics and Genomics
Download icon

A genome-wide resource for the analysis of protein localisation in Drosophila

  1. Mihail Sarov
  2. Christiane Barz
  3. Helena Jambor
  4. Marco Y Hein
  5. Christopher Schmied
  6. Dana Suchold
  7. Bettina Stender
  8. Stephan Janosch
  9. Vinay Vikas KJ
  10. RT Krishnan
  11. Aishwarya Krishnamoorthy
  12. Irene RS Ferreira
  13. Radoslaw K Ejsmont
  14. Katja Finkl
  15. Susanne Hasse
  16. Philipp Kämpfer
  17. Nicole Plewka
  18. Elisabeth Vinis
  19. Siegfried Schloissnig
  20. Elisabeth Knust
  21. Volker Hartenstein
  22. Matthias Mann
  23. Mani Ramaswami
  24. K VijayRaghavan
  25. Pavel Tomancak
  26. Frank Schnorrer  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Germany
  3. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India
  4. Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, India
  5. Heidelberg Institute of Theoretical Studies, Germany
  6. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  7. Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Tools and Resources
  • Cited 133
  • Views 16,458
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e12068 doi: 10.7554/eLife.12068
Voice your concerns about research culture and research communication: Have your say in our 7th annual survey.
Take the Survey

Abstract

The Drosophila genome contains >13,000 protein coding genes, the majority of which remain poorly investigated. Important reasons include the lack of antibodies or reporter constructs to visualise these proteins. Here we present a genome-wide fosmid library of 10,000 GFP-tagged clones, comprising tagged genes and most of their regulatory information. For 880 tagged proteins we created transgenic lines and for a total of 207 lines we assessed protein expression and localisation in ovaries, embryos, pupae or adults by stainings and live imaging approaches. Importantly, we visualised many proteins at endogenous expression levels and found a large fraction of them localising to subcellular compartments. By applying genetic complementation tests we estimate that about two-thirds of the tagged proteins are functional. Moreover, these tagged proteins enable interaction proteomics from developing pupae and adult flies. Taken together, this resource will boost systematic analysis of protein expression and localisation in various cellular and developmental contexts.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mihail Sarov

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  2. Christiane Barz

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  3. Helena Jambor

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  4. Marco Y Hein

    Department of Proteomics and Signal Transduction, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  5. Christopher Schmied

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  6. Dana Suchold

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  7. Bettina Stender

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  8. Stephan Janosch

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  9. Vinay Vikas KJ

    Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  10. RT Krishnan

    Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  11. Aishwarya Krishnamoorthy

    Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  12. Irene RS Ferreira

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  13. Radoslaw K Ejsmont

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  14. Katja Finkl

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  15. Susanne Hasse

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  16. Philipp Kämpfer

    Heidelberg Institute of Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  17. Nicole Plewka

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  18. Elisabeth Vinis

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  19. Siegfried Schloissnig

    Heidelberg Institute of Theoretical Studies, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  20. Elisabeth Knust

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  21. Volker Hartenstein

    Department of Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  22. Matthias Mann

    Department of Proteomics and Signal Transduction, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  23. Mani Ramaswami

    Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
    Competing interests
    Mani Ramaswami, Reviewing editor, eLife.

  24. K VijayRaghavan

    Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India
    Competing interests
    K VijayRaghavan, Senior editor, eLife.

  25. Pavel Tomancak

    Max Planck Institute of Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

  26. Frank Schnorrer

    Muscle Dynamics Group, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany
    For correspondence
    schnorrer@biochem.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Hugo J Bellen, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: October 3, 2015
  2. Accepted: February 19, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 20, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 14, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Sarov et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 16,458
    Page views
  • 3,495
    Downloads
  • 133
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics

    Protein Tagging: Building a ladder to Hershey Heaven

    Kai Zinn
    Insight

    A genome-wide resource looks set to turn an experimental ideal into a reality for the Drosophila community.

    1. Developmental Biology

    Ongoing repair of migration-coupled DNA damage allows planarian adult stem cells to reach wound sites

    Sounak Sahu et al.
    Short Report Updated

    Mechanical stress during cell migration may be a previously unappreciated source of genome instability, but the extent to which this happens in any animal in vivo remains unknown. We consider an in vivo system where the adult stem cells of planarian flatworms are required to migrate to a distal wound site. We observe a relationship between adult stem cell migration and ongoing DNA damage and repair during tissue regeneration. Migrating planarian stem cells undergo changes in nuclear shape and exhibit increased levels of DNA damage. Increased DNA damage levels reduce once stem cells reach the wound site. Stem cells in which DNA damage is induced prior to wounding take longer to initiate migration and migrating stem cell populations are more sensitive to further DNA damage than stationary stem cells. RNAi-mediated knockdown of DNA repair pathway components blocks normal stem cell migration, confirming that active DNA repair pathways are required to allow successful migration to a distal wound site. Together these findings provide evidence that levels of migration-coupled-DNA-damage are significant in adult stem cells and that ongoing migration requires DNA repair mechanisms. Our findings reveal that migration of normal stem cells in vivo represents an unappreciated source of damage, which could be a significant source of mutations in animals during development or during long-term tissue homeostasis.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Plant Biology

    Organ geometry channels reproductive cell fate in the Arabidopsis ovule primordium

    Elvira Hernandez-Lagana et al.
    Research Article

    In multicellular organisms, sexual reproduction requires the separation of the germline from the soma. In flowering plants, the female germline precursor differentiates as a single spore mother cell (SMC) as the ovule primordium forms. Here, we explored how organ growth contributes to SMC differentiation. We generated 92 annotated 3D images at cellular resolution in Arabidopsis. We identified the spatio-temporal pattern of cell division that acts in a domain-specific manner as the primordium forms. Tissue growth models uncovered plausible morphogenetic principles involving a spatially confined growth signal, differential mechanical properties, and cell growth anisotropy. Our analysis revealed that SMC characteristics first arise in more than one cell but SMC fate becomes progressively restricted to a single cell during organ growth. Altered primordium geometry coincided with a delay in the fate restriction process in katanin mutants. Altogether, our study suggests that tissue geometry channels reproductive cell fate in the Arabidopsis ovule primordium.