Mating Behavior: When structure meets function
It is a truism to say that in many organisms, body structure matters for behavior: jumping is not possible without legs, or flying without wings. However, scientists sometimes overlook morphology when trying to understand behavior, preferring instead to favor explanations that involve the brain and the nervous system. For instance, for decades it was thought that the yellow gene in fruit flies, which gives them their black color, was important for courtship behaviors because it is also expressed in the central nervous system (Drapeau et al., 2003; Drapeau et al., 2006). Male flies deficient in this gene mate less, and it was assumed that this was a consequence of changes in the neuronal wiring of the behavior controlled by yellow.
This makes intuitive sense in many ways because pigmentation genes such as yellow are derived from – and can bind to – dopamine, a chemical that has many neurological roles. However, in addition to creating color, pigments can also shape the structural properties of the external skeleton (Wittkopp and Beldade, 2009). Now in eLife, Patricia Wittkopp (University of Michigan), David Stern (Janelia Research Campus) and colleagues, including Jonathan Massey as first author, report the results of elegant experiments that rule out a neurological role for yellow in altering courtship behavior (Massey et al., 2019).
During courtship, male fruit flies perform a number of actions such as singing and extending their wings. Massey et al. found that the insects that lacked yellow also displayed the same mating behaviors, but they spent less time initiating copulation with females. This suggests that yellow might be important for this process, so the researchers set out to identify the types of cells in which the absence of yellow would have an impact on the beginning of copulation. They used two genes which regulate sex-specific behaviors and sexual dimorphism to manipulate where yellow was expressed in the body. Fruitless controls the expression of yellow in the central nervous system of larvae, while doublesex acts indirectly on yellow and is responsible, among other roles, for sex-specific pigmentation (Drapeau et al., 2006; Kopp et al., 2000; Williams et al., 2008; Signor et al., 2016).
First, flies were genetically engineered so that yellow was only expressed in the central nervous system, under the control of fruitless. This did not restore normal mating behavior. Massey et al. then used doublesex to control the expression of yellow. When the gene was not expressed in the tissues where doublesex is present, the flies failed to start mating; however, they also showed lack of mating when yellow was expressed in the nervous system under the control of doublesex. The insects only mated normally when yellow was expressed in other, non-neuronal cells.
To find out which non-neuronal cells might be responsible for the difference in mating success, Massey et al. examined the sequences that regulate the expression of doublesex, looking for regions that had an effect on reproductive behavior in male flies. A region was identified, which drove the expression of doublesex in the sex combs. This structure is formed of bristles on the forelegs of male flies and contains large amounts of melanin pigment. Removing the combs does not influence courtship behavior, but it does reduce mating success (Ng and Kopp, 2008). Moreover, it had been shown previously that the expression of doublesex is involved in the development and diversification of sex combs in fruit flies (Tanaka et al., 2011). In the latest work, Massey et al. showed that these structures are present when yellow is not expressed, but that they are not melanized: this prevents male flies from efficiently grasping female flies and starting to mate.
For many years, yellow was thought to influence courtship behavior through its expression in the central nervous system, and its role in the structural properties of the sex comb was entirely overlooked. By showing that neuronal sources of yellow do not affect courtship, the work of Massey et al. is both an exciting reminder that structure determines function, and a cautionary tale about the dangers of overlooking the physical aspects of behavior.
Development and evolution of insect pigmentation: genetic mechanisms and the potential consequences of pleiotropySeminars in Cell & Developmental Biology 20:65–71.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2008.10.002
Article and author information
- Version of Record published: October 15, 2019 (version 1)
© 2019, Signor
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
- Page views
Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
A hundred years after the discovery of yellow mutant flies, new experiments expose why they reproduce so badly.
- Developmental Biology
- Evolutionary Biology
During development, the growing organism transits through a series of temporally regulated morphological stages to generate the adult form. In humans, for example, development progresses from childhood through to puberty and then to adulthood, when sexual maturity is attained. Similarly, in holometabolous insects, immature juveniles transit to the adult form through an intermediate pupal stage when larval tissues are eliminated and the imaginal progenitor cells form the adult structures. The identity of the larval, pupal, and adult stages depends on the sequential expression of the transcription factors chinmo, Br-C, and E93. However, how these transcription factors determine temporal identity in developing tissues is poorly understood. Here, we report on the role of the larval specifier chinmo in larval and adult progenitor cells during fly development. Interestingly, chinmo promotes growth in larval and imaginal tissues in a Br-C-independent and -dependent manner, respectively. In addition, we found that the absence of chinmo during metamorphosis is critical for proper adult differentiation. Importantly, we also provide evidence that, in contrast to the well-known role of chinmo as a pro-oncogene, Br-C and E93 act as tumour suppressors. Finally, we reveal that the function of chinmo as a juvenile specifier is conserved in hemimetabolous insects as its homolog has a similar role in Blatella germanica. Taken together, our results suggest that the sequential expression of the transcription factors Chinmo, Br-C and E93 during larva, pupa an adult respectively, coordinate the formation of the different organs that constitute the adult organism.