In insects, the rate of growth during development is influenced by environmental factors such as nutrient availability (Boulan et al., 2015; Edgar, 2006; Hietakangas and Cohen, 2009; Nijhout, 2003; Nijhout et al., 2014). When nutrients are abundant, the growth rate is high and body size is large (Beadle et al., 1938; Edgar, 2006; Mirth and Shingleton, 2012; Nijhout, 2003; Robertson, 1963). When nutrients are scarce, the growth rate is lower and body size is smaller (Beadle et al., 1938; Edgar, 2006; Mirth and Riddiford, 2007; Mirth and Shingleton, 2012; Nijhout, 2003; Robertson, 1963). This ability of an organism or genotype to adjust its body size in line with nutrient availability is a form of phenotypic plasticity (Agrawal, 2001; Garland, 2006). While the capacity of individuals to display nutrient-dependent changes to body size depends on many factors, one important factor that affects phenotypic plasticity is whether an animal is male or female (Stillwell et al., 2010; Teder and Tammaru, 2005). For example, in Drosophila the magnitude of changes to wing cell size and cell number in a nutrient-poor diet were larger in females compared with males (Alpatov, 1930). Similarly, the magnitude of protein- and carbohydrate-induced changes to several morphological traits was larger in female flies (Shingleton et al., 2017). While these studies clearly establish a sex difference in nutrient-dependent phenotypic plasticity, the genetic and molecular mechanisms underlying this increased trait size plasticity in females remain unclear.

Clues into potential mechanisms underlying the increased nutrient-dependent phenotypic plasticity in female flies have emerged from over 20 years of studies on nutrient-dependent growth in Drosophila (Andersen et al., 2013; Boulan et al., 2015; Edgar, 2006; Koyama and Mirth, 2018; Mirth and Piper, 2017). In particular, these studies have identified the conserved insulin/insulin-like growth factor signaling pathway (IIS) as a key regulator of nutrient-dependent growth in Drosophila (Böhni et al., 1999; Britton et al., 2002; Chen et al., 1996; Fernandez et al., 1995; Grewal, 2009; Teleman, 2010). In nutrient-rich conditions, insulin-producing cells (IPCs) in the larval brain release Drosophila insulin-like peptides (Dilps) into the circulation (Brogiolo et al., 2001; Géminard et al., 2009; Ikeya et al., 2002; Rulifson et al., 2002). These Dilps bind the Insulin-like Receptor (InR; FBgn0283499) on target cells to induce receptor autophosphorylation and recruitment of adapter proteins (Almudi et al., 2013; Böhni et al., 1999; Chen et al., 1996; Poltilove et al., 2000; Werz et al., 2009). These adapter proteins enable the recruitment of the regulatory and catalytic subunits of the Drosophila homolog of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (Pi3K21B; FBgn0020622 and Pi3K92E; FBgn0015279, respectively), which catalyze the production of phosphatidylinositol (3,4,5)-trisphosphate (PIP₃) from phosphatidylinositol (4,5)-bisphosphate (PIP₂) (Leevers et al., 1996). Increased plasma membrane PIP₃ recruits and activates signaling proteins such as phosphoinositide-dependent kinase 1 (Pdk1; FBgn0020386) and Akt (Akt; FBgn0010379), which influence diverse cellular processes to enhance cell, tissue, and organismal size (Cho et al., 2001; Grewal, 2009; Rintelen et al., 2001; Verdu et al., 1999).

In contrast, when nutrients are scarce, Dilp release from the IPCs is reduced (Géminard et al., 2009), and plasma membrane Pi3K recruitment, PIP₃ levels, and Pdk1- and Akt-dependent signaling are all reduced (Britton et al., 2002; Nowak et al., 2013). Together, these changes diminish cell, tissue, and organismal size (Arquier et al., 2008; Britton et al., 2002; Géminard et al., 2009; Honegger et al., 2008; Okamoto et al., 2013; Rulifson et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2009). Indeed, the potent growth-promoting ability of IIS activation is shown by the fact that increased IIS activity augments body size (Arquier et al., 2008; Goberdhan et al., 1999; Honegger et al., 2008; Ikeya et al., 2002; Nowak et al., 2013; Okamoto et al., 2013; Oldham et al., 2002), whereas reduced IIS activity limits cell, organ, and body size (Böhni et al., 1999; Brogiolo et al., 2001; Chen et al., 1996; Colombani et al., 2003; Gao et al., 2000; Grönke et al., 2010; Leevers et al., 1996; Murillo-Maldonado et al., 2011; Rulifson et al., 2002; Weinkove et al., 1999; Zhang et al., 2009). Because increased IIS activity bypasses the reduction in cell size in low-nutrient conditions (Britton et al., 2002; Géminard et al., 2009; Nowak et al., 2013), and mutations that blunt IIS pathway activity reduce size in nutrient-rich contexts (Böhni et al., 1999; Brogiolo et al., 2001; Chen et al., 1996; Leevers et al., 1996), Drosophila studies have established IIS as one key pathway that promotes organismal growth downstream of nutrient input. While this highlights the impact of Drosophila on our knowledge of how IIS couples nutrient input with growth, it is important to note that most studies used a mixed-sex population of larvae. Given that cell and body size differ significantly between male and female flies (Alpatov, 1930; Brown and King, 1961; Okamoto et al., 2013; Partridge et al., 1994; Rideout et al., 2015; Sawala and Gould, 2017; Testa et al., 2013), more knowledge is needed of nutrient-dependent changes to body size and IIS activity in each sex.

Recent studies have begun to make progress in this area by studying IIS regulation and function in both sexes in a single dietary context (reviewed in Millington and Rideout, 2018). For example, in late third instar larvae, there are sex differences in dilp mRNA levels, IIS activity, and Drosophila insulin-like peptide 2 (Dilp2; FBgn0036046) secretion from the IPCs (Rideout et al., 2015; McDonald et al., 2020). Similarly, transcriptomic studies have detected male-female differences in mRNA levels of genes associated with IIS function (Mathews et al., 2017; Rideout et al., 2015), and revealed links between IIS and the sex determination hierarchy gene regulatory network (Castellanos et al., 2013; Chang et al., 2011; Clough et al., 2014; Fear et al., 2015; Garner et al., 2018; Goldman and Arbeitman, 2007). As increasing evidence of sex-specific IIS regulation accumulates, several reports reveal sex-limited and sex-biased phenotypic effects caused by changes to IIS function. Changes to IIS activity in larvae show sex-biased effects on growth and final body size (Grönke et al., 2010; Rideout et al., 2015; Shingleton et al., 2005; Testa et al., 2013; Millington et al., 2021), and there are widespread sex-specific and sex-biased changes to gene expression in adult flies with altered diet and IIS activity (Camus et al., 2019; Graze et al., 2018). Further, sex differences exist in how changes to diet and IIS activity affect life span (Bjedov et al., 2010; Clancy, 2001; Giannakou et al., 2004; Grönke et al., 2010; Regan et al., 2016; Tatar et al., 2001; Woodling et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2020). Together, these studies illuminate the utility of Drosophila in revealing sex-specific IIS regulation and describing the physiological impact of this regulation. Yet, more studies are needed to discover the molecular mechanisms underlying sex-specific IIS regulation, and to extend these studies beyond a single nutritional context.

Additional insights into male-female differences in the regulation of cell, tissue, and body size arise from studies on sex determination genes. In Drosophila, sex is determined by the number of X chromosomes. In XX females, a functional splicing factor called Sex-lethal (Sxl; FBgn0264270) is produced (Bell et al., 1988; Bridges, 1921; Cline, 1978; Salz and Erickson, 2010). Sxl-dependent splicing of transformer (tra; FBgn0003741) pre-mRNA allows a functional Tra protein to be produced in females (Belote et al., 1989; Boggs et al., 1987; Inoue et al., 1990; Sosnowski et al., 1989). In XY males, the lack of a functional Sxl protein causes the default splicing of tra pre-mRNA, and no functional Tra protein is produced in males (Cline and Meyer, 1996; Salz and Erickson, 2010; Belote et al., 1989; Boggs et al., 1987; Inoue et al., 1990; Sosnowski et al., 1989). The presence of functional Sxl and Tra proteins in females account for most aspects of female sexual development, behavior, and physiology (Anand et al., 2001; Billeter et al., 2006; Brown and King, 1961; Camara et al., 2008; Christiansen et al., 2002; Clough et al., 2014; Dauwalder, 2011; Demir and Dickson, 2005; Goodwin et al., 2000; Hoshijima et al., 1991; Hudry et al., 2016; Hudry et al., 2019; Ito et al., 1996; Millington and Rideout, 2018; Neville et al., 2014; Nojima et al., 2014; Pavlou et al., 2016; Pomatto et al., 2017; Regan et al., 2016; Rezával et al., 2014; Rezával et al., 2016; Rideout et al., 2010; Ryner et al., 1996; Sturtevant, 1945; von Philipsborn et al., 2014). Recently, new roles for Sxl and Tra in regulating body size were also described. While female flies are normally larger than males, females lacking neuronal Sxl were smaller than control females, and not different in size from males (Sawala and Gould, 2017). Similarly, females lacking a functional Tra protein were smaller than control females; however, these tra mutant females were still larger than males (Brown and King, 1961; Mathews et al., 2017; Rideout et al., 2015). Together, these studies indicate that Tra and Sxl are required to promote a larger body size in females; however, much remains to be discovered about the mechanisms by which Sxl and Tra impact body size. Moreover, which sex determination genes contribute to the male-female difference in diet-induced trait size plasticity remains unknown, as studies on sex determination genes used a single diet.

In the present study, we aimed to improve knowledge of the genetic and molecular mechanisms that contribute to male-female differences in nutrient-dependent phenotypic plasticity in Drosophila. Our detailed examination of body size revealed increased phenotypic plasticity in females in response to a protein-rich diet, in line with studies on plasticity in other traits (Shingleton et al., 2017). We discovered that a female-biased upregulation of IIS activity was responsible for the larger body size of females raised on a protein-rich diet. Mechanistically, we show that the nutrient-dependent upregulation of stunted (sun; FBgn0014391) mRNA levels by transcriptional coactivator Spargel (Srl; FBgn0037248) in females triggers the diet-induced increase in IIS activity, as females with reduced sun do not augment IIS activity or body size in a protein-rich diet. Importantly, we show that sex determination gene tra is required for the nutrient-dependent increase in sun mRNA, IIS activity, and phenotypic plasticity in females, and that Srl represents a key link between Tra and regulation of sun mRNA levels. In males, ectopic Tra expression confers nutrient-dependent body size plasticity via Srl-mediated regulation of sun mRNA levels and IIS activity. Together, these results provide new insight into the molecular mechanisms that govern male-female differences in body size plasticity, and identify a previously unrecognized role for sex determination gene tra in regulating nutrient-dependent phenotypic plasticity.

In many animals, body size plasticity in response to environmental factors such as nutrition differs between the sexes (Fairbairn, 1997). While past studies have identified mechanisms underlying nutrient-dependent growth in a mixed-sex population, and revealed factors that promote sex-specific growth in a single nutritional context, the mechanisms underlying the sex difference in nutrient-dependent body size plasticity remain unknown. In this study, we showed that females have higher phenotypic plasticity compared with males when reared on a protein-rich diet, and elucidated the molecular mechanisms underlying the sex difference in nutrient-dependent body size plasticity in this context. Our data suggests a model in which high levels of dietary protein augment female body size by stimulating an increase in IIS activity, where we identified a requirement for dilp2 and sun in promoting this nutrient-dependent increase in IIS activity. Importantly, we discovered tra as the factor responsible for stimulating sun mRNA levels and IIS activity in a protein-rich context, revealing a novel role for sex determination gene tra in regulating phenotypic plasticity. Mechanistically, tra enhanced sun mRNA levels and body size in protein-rich conditions via transcriptional coactivator Srl, identifying Srl as one link between tra and the nutrient-dependent regulation of gene expression. Together, these findings provide new insight into how Drosophila females achieve increased nutrient-dependent body size plasticity compared with males.

One key feature of this increased phenotypic plasticity in females was a female-biased increase in IIS activity in a protein-rich context. This reveals a previously unrecognized sex difference in the coupling between IIS activity and dietary protein. In females, there was tight coupling between increased nutrient input and enhanced IIS activity across a wide protein concentration range in all control genotypes. In males, this close coordination between dietary protein and IIS activity was weaker in a protein-rich context. Our data shows that sex-biased nutrient-dependent change to IIS activity during development is physiologically significant, as it supports an increased rate of growth and consequently larger body size in females but not in males raised on a protein-rich diet. In future studies, it will be important to determine whether the sex difference in coupling between nutrients and IIS activity exists in other contexts. For example, previous studies on the extension of life span by dietary restriction have shown that male and female flies differ in the concentration of nutrients that produces the maximum life span extension, and in the magnitude of life span extension produced by dietary restriction (Magwere et al., 2004; Regan et al., 2016). Similar sex-specific effects of dietary restriction and reduced IIS on life span have also been observed in mice (Holzenberger et al., 2003; Kane et al., 2018; reviewed in Regan and Partridge, 2013; Selman et al., 2008) and humans (Van Heemst et al., 2005). Future studies will be needed to determine whether a male-female difference in coupling between nutrients and IIS activity account for these sex-specific life span responses to dietary restriction. Indeed, given that sex differences have been reported in the risk of developing diseases associated with overnutrition and dysregulation of IIS activity such as obesity and type 2 diabetes (Kautzky-Willer et al., 2016; Mauvais-Jarvis, 2018; Tramunt et al., 2020), more detailed knowledge of the male-female difference in coupling between nutrients and IIS activity in other models may provide insights into this sex-biased risk of disease.

In addition to revealing a sex difference in the nutrient-dependent upregulation of IIS activity, our data identified a female-specific requirement for dilp2 and sun in mediating the diet-induced increase in IIS activity in a protein-rich context. While previous studies have shown that both dilp2 and sun positively regulate body size (Ikeya et al., 2002; Grönke et al., 2010; Delanoue et al., 2016), we describe new sex-specific roles for dilp2 and sun in nutrient-dependent phenotypic plasticity. Elegant studies have shown that sun is a secreted factor that stimulates Dilp2 release from the IPCs (Delanoue et al., 2016). Together with our data, this suggests a model in which females are able to achieve a larger body size in a protein-rich diet because they have the ability to upregulate sun mRNA levels, whereas males do not. Indeed, we show that higher sun mRNA levels are sufficient to augment body size. This model aligns well with findings from two previous studies on Dilp2 secretion in male and female larvae. The first study, which raised larvae on a protein-rich diet equivalent to the 2Y diet, found increased Dilp2 secretion in females compared to males (Rideout et al., 2015). The second study, which raised larvae on a diet equivalent to the 1Y diet, found no sex difference in Dilp2 secretion and no effects of dilp2 loss on body size (Sawala and Gould, 2017). Thus, while these previous studies differed in their initial findings on a sex difference in Dilp2 secretion, our data reconcile these minor differences by identifying context-dependent effects of dilp2 on body size. It is important to note that absolute confirmation of a sex difference in hemolymph Dilp2 levels will be needed in future studies because the body size plasticity defects in the dilp2-HF strain precluded its use as a tool to quantify circulating Dilp2 levels in our study. Future studies will also need to determine whether these sex-specific and context-dependent effects of dilp2 are observed in other phenotypes regulated by dilp2 and other dilp genes. For example, flies carrying mutations in dilp genes show changes to aging, metabolism, sleep, and immunity, among other phenotypes (Bai et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2020; Cong et al., 2015; Grönke et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2016; Nässel and Vanden Broeck, 2016; Okamoto et al., 2009; Okamoto and Nishimura, 2015; Post et al., 2018; Post et al., 2019; Slaidina et al., 2009; Stafford et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2009; Brogiolo et al., 2001; Cognigni et al., 2011; Linneweber et al., 2014; Semaniuk et al., 2018; Suzawa et al., 2019; Ugrankar et al., 2018). Further, it will be interesting to determine whether the sex-specific regulation of sun is observed in any other contexts, and whether it will influence sex differences in phenotypes associated with altered IIS activity, such as life span.

While our findings on sun and dilp2 provide mechanistic insight into the molecular basis for the larger body size of females reared on a protein-rich diet, a key finding from our study was the identification of sex determination gene tra as the factor that confers plasticity to females. Normally, nutrient-dependent body size plasticity is higher in females than in males in a protein-rich context. In females lacking a functional Tra protein, however, this increased nutrient-dependent body size plasticity was abolished. In males, which normally lack a functional Tra protein, ectopic Tra expression conferred increased nutrient-dependent body size plasticity. While a previous study showed that on the 2Y diet Tra promotes Dilp2 secretion (Rideout et al., 2015), our current study extends this finding in two ways: by identifying sun as one link between Tra, Dilp2, and changes to IIS activity; and by showing that Tra regulates sun mRNA via conserved transcriptional coactivator Srl. While previous studies discovered Srl as the factor that promotes sun mRNA levels in response to dietary protein in a mixed-sex larval population (Delanoue et al., 2016), our findings reveal a previously unrecognized sex-specific role for Srl in regulating transcription. Because loss of Tra reduces Srl transcriptional activity, this new link between Tra and Srl suggests an additional way in which Tra may impact gene expression beyond its canonical downstream targets dsx and fru. While this builds on recent studies that reveal a number of additional Tra-regulated genes (Clough et al., 2014; Hudry et al., 2016; Hudry et al., 2019), it will be important to determine whether these additional Tra-regulated genes including sun represent direct targets of Tra/Srl. Future studies will also be needed to elucidate how Tra impacts Srl transcriptional activity in a context-dependent manner. However, uncovering a connection between a sex determination gene and a key regulator of genes involved in mitochondrial function suggests an additional mechanism that may contribute to sex differences in phenotypes affected by mitochondrial function (e.g. lifespan) (Tiefenböck et al., 2010; Cho et al., 2011; Tower, 2015; Tower, 2017). In addition, it will be critical to explore how the presence of Tra allows an individual to couple dietary protein with body size. Because the tra locus is regulated both by alternative splicing and transcription (Belote et al., 1989; Boggs et al., 1987; Grmai et al., 2018; Inoue et al., 1990; Sosnowski et al., 1989), and Tra protein is regulated by phosphorylation (Du et al., 1998), our study highlights the importance of additional studies on the regulation of the tra genomic locus and Tra protein throughout development to gain mechanistic insight into its effects on nutrient-dependent body size plasticity.

While the main outcome of our work was to reveal the molecular mechanisms that regulate the sex difference in nutrient-dependent body size plasticity, we also provide some insight into how genes that contribute to nutrient-dependent body size plasticity affect female fecundity and male fertility. Our findings align well with previous studies demonstrating that increased nutrient availability during development and a larger female body size confers increased ovariole number and fertility (Green and Extavour, 2014; Klepsatel et al., 2020; Mendes and Mirth, 2016; Robertson, 1957a; Robertson, 1957b), as females lacking either dilp2 or fat body-derived sun were unable to augment egg production in a protein-rich context. Given that previous studies demonstrate IIS activity influences germline stem cells in the ovary in adult flies (Hsu et al., 2008; Hsu and Drummond-Barbosa, 2009; Kao et al., 2015; LaFever and Drummond-Barbosa, 2005; Lin and Hsu, 2020; Su et al., 2018), there is a clear reproductive benefit that arises from the tight coupling between nutrient availability, IIS activity, and body size in females. In males, however, the relationship between fertility and body size remains less clear. While larger males are more reproductively successful both in the wild and in laboratory conditions (Ewing, 1961; Partridge and Farquhar, 1983), other studies revealed that medium-sized males were more fertile than both larger and smaller males (Lefranc and Bundgaard, 2000). Given that our study revealed no significant increase in the number of progeny produced by larger males, the fertility benefits that accompany a larger body size in males may be context-dependent. For example, a larger body size increases the ability of males to outcompete smaller males (Flatt, 2020; Partridge et al., 1987; Partridge and Farquhar, 1983). Thus, in crowded situations, a bigger body may provide significant fertility gains. On the other hand, in conditions where nutrients are limiting, an imbalance in the allocation of energy from food to growth rather than to reproduction may decrease fertility (Bass et al., 2007; Camus et al., 2017; Jensen et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2018). Future studies will need to resolve the relationship between body size and fertility in males, as this will suggest the ultimate reason(s) for the sex difference in nutrient-dependent body size plasticity.

All data generated in this study are provided in Supplementary file 2. All statistical tests and p-values are listed in Supplementary file 1. Exact diets used in this study are described in Supplementary file 3 for ease of replication. All genotypes used in this study are listed in Supplementary file 4. A complete list of primers used in this study is provided in Supplementary file 5.

1. 1. Agrawal AA

   (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species

   Science 294:321–326.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1060701

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Alic N
   2. Andrews TD
   3. Giannakou ME
   4. Papatheodorou I
   5. Slack C
   6. Hoddinott MP
   7. Cochemé HM
   8. Schuster EF
   9. Thornton JM
   10. Partridge L

   (2011) Genome-wide dFOXO targets and topology of the transcriptomic response to stress and insulin signalling

   Molecular Systems Biology 7:502.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/msb.2011.36

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Almudi I
   2. Poernbacher I
   3. Hafen E
   4. Stocker H

   (2013) The lnk/SH2B adaptor provides a fail-safe mechanism to establish the insulin receptor-Chico interaction

   Cell Communication and Signaling 11:26.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-811X-11-26

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Alpatov WW

   (1930) Phenotypical variation in body and cell size of Drosophila melanogaster

   The Biological Bulletin 58:85–103.

   https://doi.org/10.2307/1537121

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Anand A
   2. Villella A
   3. Ryner LC
   4. Carlo T
   5. Goodwin SF
   6. Song HJ
   7. Gailey DA
   8. Morales A
   9. Hall JC
   10. Baker BS
   11. Taylor BJ

   (2001)

   Molecular genetic dissection of the sex-specific and vital functions of the Drosophila melanogaster sex determination gene fruitless

   Genetics 158:1569–1595.

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Andersen DS
   2. Colombani J
   3. Léopold P

   (2013) Coordination of organ growth: principles and outstanding questions from the world of insects

   Trends in Cell Biology 23:336–344.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2013.03.005

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Arquier N
   2. Géminard C
   3. Bourouis M
   4. Jarretou G
   5. Honegger B
   6. Paix A
   7. Léopold P

   (2008) Drosophila ALS regulates growth and metabolism through functional interaction with insulin-like peptides

   Cell Metabolism 7:333–338.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2008.02.003

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bai H
   2. Kang P
   3. Tatar M

   (2012) Drosophila insulin-like peptide-6 (dilp6) expression from fat body extends lifespan and represses secretion of Drosophila insulin-like peptide-2 from the brain

   Aging Cell 11:978–985.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12000

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bass TM
   2. Grandison RC
   3. Wong R
   4. Martinez P
   5. Partridge L
   6. Piper MDW

   (2007) Optimization of dietary restriction protocols in Drosophila

   The Journals of Gerontology: Series A 62:1071–1081.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/62.10.1071

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Beadle GW
    2. Tatum EL
    3. Clancy CW

    (1938) Food level in relation to rate of development and eye pigmentation in Drosophila melanogaster

    The Biological Bulletin 75:447–462.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1537573

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bell LR
    2. Maine EM
    3. Schedl P
    4. Cline TW

    (1988) Sex-lethal, a Drosophila sex determination switch gene, exhibits sex-specific RNA splicing and sequence similarity to RNA binding proteins

    Cell 55:1037–1046.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(88)90248-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Belote JM
    2. McKeown M
    3. Boggs RT
    4. Ohkawa R
    5. Sosnowski BA

    (1989) Molecular genetics of transformer, a genetic switch controlling sexual differentiation in Drosophila

    Developmental Genetics 10:143–154.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dvg.1020100304

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Bergland AO
    2. Genissel A
    3. Nuzhdin SV
    4. Tatar M

    (2008) Quantitative trait loci affecting phenotypic plasticity and the allometric relationship of ovariole number and thorax length in Drosophila melanogaster

    Genetics 180:567–582.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.108.088906

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Billeter JC
    2. Rideout EJ
    3. Dornan AJ
    4. Goodwin SF

    (2006) Control of male sexual behavior in Drosophila by the sex determination pathway

    Current Biology 16:R766–R776.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.08.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Bjedov I
    2. Toivonen JM
    3. Kerr F
    4. Slack C
    5. Jacobson J
    6. Foley A
    7. Partridge L

    (2010) Mechanisms of life span extension by rapamycin in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster

    Cell Metabolism 11:35–46.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2009.11.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Blaschke K
    2. Ebata KT
    3. Karimi MM
    4. Zepeda-Martínez JA
    5. Goyal P
    6. Mahapatra S
    7. Tam A
    8. Laird DJ
    9. Hirst M
    10. Rao A
    11. Lorincz MC
    12. Ramalho-Santos M

    (2013) Vitamin C induces Tet-dependent DNA demethylation and a blastocyst-like state in ES cells

    Nature 500:222–226.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12362

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Boggs RT
    2. Gregor P
    3. Idriss S
    4. Belote JM
    5. McKeown M

    (1987) Regulation of sexual differentiation in D. melanogaster via alternative splicing of RNA from the transformer gene

    Cell 50:739–747.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(87)90332-1

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Böhni R
    2. Riesgo-Escovar J
    3. Oldham S
    4. Brogiolo W
    5. Stocker H
    6. Andruss BF
    7. Beckingham K
    8. Hafen E

    (1999) Autonomous control of cell and organ size by CHICO, a Drosophila homolog of vertebrate IRS1-4

    Cell 97:865–875.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80799-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Boulan L
    2. Milán M
    3. Léopold P

    (2015) The systemic control of growth

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 7:a019117.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a019117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Bridges CB

    (1921) Triploid intersexes in Drosophila melanogaster

    Science 54:252–254.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.54.1394.252

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Britton JS
    2. Lockwood WK
    3. Li L
    4. Cohen SM
    5. Edgar BA

    (2002) Drosophila's insulin/PI3-kinase pathway coordinates cellular metabolism with nutritional conditions

    Developmental Cell 2:239–249.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-5807(02)00117-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Britton JS
    2. Edgar BA

    (1998)

    Environmental control of the cell cycle in Drosophila: Nutrition activates mitotic and endoreplicative cells by distinct mechanisms

    Development 125:2149–2158.

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Brogiolo W
    2. Stocker H
    3. Ikeya T
    4. Rintelen F
    5. Fernandez R
    6. Hafen E

    (2001) An evolutionarily conserved function of the Drosophila insulin receptor and insulin-like peptides in growth control

    Current Biology 11:213–221.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00068-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Brown EB
    2. Shah KD
    3. Faville R
    4. Kottler B
    5. Keene AC

    (2020) Drosophila insulin-like peptide 2 mediates dietary regulation of sleep intensity

    PLOS Genetics 16:e1008270.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008270

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Brown EH
    2. King RC

    (1961) Studies on the expression of the transformer gene of Drosophila melanogaster

    Genetics 46:143–156.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/46.2.143

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Camara N
    2. Whitworth C
    3. Van Doren M

    (2008) The creation of sexual dimorphism in the Drosophila soma

    Current Topics in Developmental Biology 83:65–107.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0070-2153(08)00403-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Camus MF
    2. Fowler K
    3. Piper MWD
    4. Reuter M

    (2017) Sex and genotype effects on nutrient-dependent fitness landscapes in Drosophila melanogaster

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20172237.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2237

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Camus MF
    2. Piper MD
    3. Reuter M

    (2019) Sex-specific transcriptomic responses to changes in the nutritional environment

    eLife 8:e47262.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47262

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Castellanos MC
    2. Tang JC
    3. Allan DW

    (2013) Female-biased dimorphism underlies a female-specific role for post-embryonic Ilp7 neurons in Drosophila fertility

    Development 140:3915–3926.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.094714

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Chang PL
    2. Dunham JP
    3. Nuzhdin SV
    4. Arbeitman MN

    (2011) Somatic sex-specific transcriptome differences in Drosophila revealed by whole transcriptome sequencing

    BMC Genomics 12:364.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-12-364

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Chen C
    2. Jack J
    3. Garofalo RS

    (1996) The Drosophila insulin receptor is required for normal growth

    Endocrinology 137:846–856.

    https://doi.org/10.1210/endo.137.3.8603594

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Cho KS
    2. Lee JH
    3. Kim S
    4. Kim D
    5. Koh H
    6. Lee J
    7. Kim C
    8. Kim J
    9. Chung J

    (2001) Drosophila phosphoinositide-dependent kinase-1 regulates apoptosis and growth via the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-dependent signaling pathway

    PNAS 98:6144–6149.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.101596998

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Cho J
    2. Hur JH
    3. Walker DW

    (2011) The role of mitochondria in Drosophila aging

    Experimental Gerontology 46:331–334.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2010.08.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Christiansen AE
    2. Keisman EL
    3. Ahmad SM
    4. Baker BS

    (2002) Sex comes in from the cold: the integration of sex and pattern

    Trends in Genetics 18:510–516.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02769-5

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Clancy DJ

    (2001) Extension of Life-Span by loss of CHICO, a Drosophila insulin receptor substrate protein

    Science 292:104–106.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057991

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Cline TW

    (1978)

    Two closely linked mutations in Drosophila melanogaster that are lethal to opposite sexes and interact with daughterless

    Genetics 90:683–698.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Cline TW
    2. Meyer BJ

    (1996) Vive la différence: males vs females in flies vs worms

    Annual Review of Genetics 30:637–702.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.30.1.637

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Clough E
    2. Jimenez E
    3. Kim YA
    4. Whitworth C
    5. Neville MC
    6. Hempel LU
    7. Pavlou HJ
    8. Chen ZX
    9. Sturgill D
    10. Dale RK
    11. Smith HE
    12. Przytycka TM
    13. Goodwin SF
    14. Van Doren M
    15. Oliver B

    (2014) Sex- and tissue-specific functions of Drosophila doublesex transcription factor target genes

    Developmental Cell 31:761–773.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2014.11.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Cognigni P
    2. Bailey AP
    3. Miguel-Aliaga I

    (2011) Enteric neurons and systemic signals couple nutritional and reproductive status with intestinal homeostasis

    Cell Metabolism 13:92–104.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2010.12.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Colombani J
    2. Raisin S
    3. Pantalacci S
    4. Radimerski T
    5. Montagne J
    6. Léopold P

    (2003) A nutrient sensor mechanism controls Drosophila growth

    Cell 114:739–749.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00713-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Cong X
    2. Wang H
    3. Liu Z
    4. He C
    5. An C
    6. Zhao Z

    (2015) Regulation of sleep by Insulin-like peptide system in Drosophila melanogaster

    Sleep 38:1075–1083.

    https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.4816

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Dauwalder B

    (2011) The roles of fruitless and doublesex in the control of male courtship

    International Review of Neurobiology 99:87–105.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387003-2.00004-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Delanoue R
    2. Slaidina M
    3. Léopold P

    (2010) The steroid hormone ecdysone controls systemic growth by repressing dMyc function in Drosophila Fat Cells

    Developmental Cell 18:1012–1021.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2010.05.007

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Delanoue R
    2. Meschi E
    3. Agrawal N
    4. Mauri A
    5. Tsatskis Y
    6. McNeill H
    7. Léopold P

    (2016) Drosophila insulin release is triggered by adipose stunted ligand to brain methuselah receptor

    Science 353:1553–1556.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8430

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Demir E
    2. Dickson BJ

    (2005) Fruitless splicing specifies male courtship behavior in Drosophila

    Cell 121:785–794.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.04.027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Du C
    2. McGuffin ME
    3. Dauwalder B
    4. Rabinow L
    5. Mattox W

    (1998) Protein phosphorylation plays an essential role in the regulation of alternative splicing and sex determination in Drosophila

    Molecular Cell 2:741–750.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1097-2765(00)80289-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Edgar BA

    (2006) How flies get their size: genetics meets physiology

    Nature Reviews Genetics 7:907–916.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1989

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Erkosar B
    2. Storelli G
    3. Mitchell M
    4. Bozonnet L
    5. Bozonnet N
    6. Leulier F

    (2015) Pathogen virulence impedes Mutualist-Mediated enhancement of host juvenile growth via inhibition of protein digestion

    Cell Host & Microbe 18:445–455.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2015.09.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Ewing AW

    (1961) Body size and courtship behaviour in Drosophila melanogaster

    Animal Behaviour 9:93–99.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(61)90055-0

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Fairbairn DJ

    (1997) ALLOMETRY FOR SEXUAL SIZE DIMORPHISM:pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females

    Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:659–687.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.659

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Fear JM
    2. Arbeitman MN
    3. Salomon MP
    4. Dalton JE
    5. Tower J
    6. Nuzhdin SV
    7. McIntyre LM

    (2015) The wright stuff: reimagining path analysis reveals novel components of the sex determination hierarchy in Drosophila melanogaster

    BMC Systems Biology 9:53.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12918-015-0200-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Fernandez R
    2. Tabarini D
    3. Azpiazu N
    4. Frasch M
    5. Schlessinger J

    (1995) The Drosophila insulin receptor homolog: a gene essential for embryonic development encodes two receptor isoforms with different signaling potential

    The EMBO Journal 14:3373–3384.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1995.tb07343.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Flatt T

    (2020) Life-History evolution and the genetics of fitness components in Drosophila melanogaster

    Genetics 214:3–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.119.300160

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Gao X
    2. Neufeld TP
    3. Pan D

    (2000) Drosophila PTEN regulates cell growth and proliferation through PI3K-Dependent and -Independent pathways

    Developmental Biology 221:404–418.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.2000.9680

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Garelli A
    2. Gontijo AM
    3. Miguela V
    4. Caparros E
    5. Dominguez M

    (2012) Imaginal discs secrete Insulin-Like peptide 8 to mediate plasticity of growth and maturation

    Science 336:579–582.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216735

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Garland T

    (2006) Phenotypic plasticity and experimental evolution

    Journal of Experimental Biology 209:2344–2361.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02244

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Garner SRC
    2. Castellanos MC
    3. Baillie KE
    4. Lian T
    5. Allan DW

    (2018) Drosophila female-specific Ilp7 motoneurons are generated by Fruitless-dependent cell death in males and by a double-assurance survival role for transformer in females

    Development 145:dev150821.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.150821

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Géminard C
    2. Rulifson EJ
    3. Léopold P

    (2009) Remote control of insulin secretion by fat cells in Drosophila

    Cell Metabolism 10:199–207.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2009.08.002

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Ghosh A
    2. Rideout EJ
    3. Grewal SS

    (2014) TIF-IA-dependent regulation of ribosome synthesis in Drosophila muscle is required to maintain systemic insulin signaling and larval growth

    PLOS Genetics 10:e1004750.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004750

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Giannakou ME
    2. Goss M
    3. Jünger MA
    4. Hafen E
    5. Leevers SJ
    6. Partridge L

    (2004) Long-lived Drosophila with overexpressed dFOXO in adult fat body

    Science 305:361.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098219

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Goberdhan DC
    2. Paricio N
    3. Goodman EC
    4. Mlodzik M
    5. Wilson C

    (1999) Drosophila tumor suppressor PTEN controls cell size and number by antagonizing the chico/PI3-kinase signaling pathway

    Genes & Development 13:3244–3258.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.13.24.3244

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Goldman TD
    2. Arbeitman MN

    (2007) Genomic and functional studies of Drosophila Sex Hierarchy Regulated Gene Expression in Adult Head and Nervous System Tissues

    PLOS Genetics 3:e216.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030216

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Goodwin SF
    2. Taylor BJ
    3. Villella A
    4. Foss M
    5. Ryner LC
    6. Baker BS
    7. Hall JC

    (2000)

    Aberrant splicing and altered spatial expression patterns in fruitless mutants of Drosophila melanogaster

    Genetics 154:725–745.

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Graze RM
    2. Tzeng RY
    3. Howard TS
    4. Arbeitman MN

    (2018) Perturbation of IIS/TOR signaling alters the landscape of sex-differential gene expression in Drosophila

    BMC Genomics 19:893.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-5308-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Green DA
    2. Extavour CG

    (2014) Insulin signalling underlies both plasticity and divergence of a reproductive trait in Drosophila

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20132673.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2673

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Grewal SS

    (2009) Insulin/TOR signaling in growth and homeostasis: a view from the fly world

    The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology 41:1006–1010.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2008.10.010

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Grmai L
    2. Hudry B
    3. Miguel-Aliaga I
    4. Bach EA

    (2018) Chinmo prevents transformer alternative splicing to maintain male sex identity

    PLOS Genetics 14:e1007203.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007203

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Grönke S
    2. Clarke DF
    3. Broughton S
    4. Andrews TD
    5. Partridge L

    (2010) Molecular evolution and functional characterization of Drosophila insulin-like peptides

    PLOS Genetics 6:e1000857.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000857

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Hietakangas V
    2. Cohen SM

    (2009) Regulation of tissue growth through nutrient sensing

    Annual Review of Genetics 43:389–410.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-102108-134815

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Hodin J
    2. Riddiford LM

    (2000) Different mechanisms underlie phenotypic plasticity and interspecific variation for a reproductive character in drosophilids (INSECTA: DIPTERA)

    Evolution 54:1638–1653.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00708.x

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Holzenberger M
    2. Dupont J
    3. Ducos B
    4. Leneuve P
    5. Géloën A
    6. Even PC
    7. Cervera P
    8. Le Bouc Y

    (2003) IGF-1 receptor regulates lifespan and resistance to oxidative stress in mice

    Nature 421:182–187.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01298

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Honegger B
    2. Galic M
    3. Köhler K
    4. Wittwer F
    5. Brogiolo W
    6. Hafen E
    7. Stocker H

    (2008) Imp-L2, a putative homolog of vertebrate IGF-binding protein 7, counteracts insulin signaling in Drosophila and is essential for starvation resistance

    Journal of Biology 7:10.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/jbiol72

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Hoshijima K
    2. Inoue K
    3. Higuchi I
    4. Sakamoto H
    5. Shimura Y

    (1991) Control of doublesex alternative splicing by transformer and transformer-2 in Drosophila

    Science 252:833–836.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1902987

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Hsu HJ
    2. LaFever L
    3. Drummond-Barbosa D

    (2008) Diet controls normal and tumorous germline stem cells via insulin-dependent and -independent mechanisms in Drosophila

    Developmental Biology 313:700–712.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.11.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Hsu HJ
    2. Drummond-Barbosa D

    (2009) Insulin levels control female germline stem cell maintenance via the niche in Drosophila

    PNAS 106:1117–1121.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809144106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Hudry B
    2. Khadayate S
    3. Miguel-Aliaga I

    (2016) The sexual identity of adult intestinal stem cells controls organ size and plasticity

    Nature 530:344–348.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16953

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Hudry B
    2. de Goeij E
    3. Mineo A
    4. Gaspar P
    5. Hadjieconomou D
    6. Studd C
    7. Mokochinski JB
    8. Kramer HB
    9. Plaçais PY
    10. Preat T
    11. Miguel-Aliaga I

    (2019) Sex differences in intestinal carbohydrate metabolism promote food intake and sperm maturation

    Cell 178:901–918.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.07.029

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Ikeya T
    2. Galic M
    3. Belawat P
    4. Nairz K
    5. Hafen E

    (2002) Nutrient-dependent expression of insulin-like peptides from neuroendocrine cells in the CNS contributes to growth regulation in Drosophila

    Current Biology 12:1293–1300.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(02)01043-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Inoue K
    2. Hoshijima K
    3. Sakamoto H
    4. Shimura Y

    (1990) Binding of the Drosophila sex-lethal gene product to the alternative splice site of transformer primary transcript

    Nature 344:461–463.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/344461a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Ito H
    2. Fujitani K
    3. Usui K
    4. Shimizu-Nishikawa K
    5. Tanaka S
    6. Yamamoto D

    (1996) Sexual orientation in Drosophila is altered by the satori mutation in the sex-determination gene fruitless that encodes a zinc finger protein with a BTB domain

    PNAS 93:9687–9692.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.18.9687

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Jensen K
    2. McClure C
    3. Priest NK
    4. Hunt J

    (2015) Sex-specific effects of protein and carbohydrate intake on reproduction but not lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster

    Aging Cell 14:605–615.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12333

    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Jünger MA
    2. Rintelen F
    3. Stocker H
    4. Wasserman JD
    5. Végh M
    6. Radimerski T
    7. Greenberg ME
    8. Hafen E

    (2003) The Drosophila forkhead transcription factor FOXO mediates the reduction in cell number associated with reduced insulin signaling

    Journal of Biology 2:20.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-4924-2-20

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Kane AE
    2. Sinclair DA
    3. Mitchell JR
    4. Mitchell SJ

    (2018) Sex differences in the response to dietary restriction in rodents

    Current Opinion in Physiology 6:28–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cophys.2018.03.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Kang P
    2. Chang K
    3. Liu Y
    4. Bouska M
    5. Birnbaum A
    6. Karashchuk G
    7. Thakore R
    8. Zheng W
    9. Post S
    10. Brent CS
    11. Li S
    12. Tatar M
    13. Bai H

    (2017) Drosophila kruppel homolog 1 represses lipolysis through interaction with dFOXO

    Scientific Reports 7:16369.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16638-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Kao SH
    2. Tseng CY
    3. Wan CL
    4. Su YH
    5. Hsieh CC
    6. Pi H
    7. Hsu HJ

    (2015) Aging and insulin signaling differentially control normal and tumorous germline stem cells

    Aging Cell 14:25–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12288

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Kautzky-Willer A
    2. Harreiter J
    3. Pacini G

    (2016) Sex and gender differences in risk, pathophysiology and complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus

    Endocrine Reviews 37:278–316.

    https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2015-1137

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Kim J
    2. Neufeld TP

    (2015) Dietary sugar promotes systemic TOR activation in Drosophila through AKH-dependent selective secretion of Dilp3

    Nature Communications 6:6846.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7846

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Klepsatel P
    2. Knoblochová D
    3. Girish TN
    4. Dircksen H
    5. Gáliková M

    (2020) The influence of developmental diet on reproduction and metabolism in Drosophila

    BMC Evolutionary Biology 20:93.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-020-01663-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Koyama T
    2. Mirth CK

    (2016) Growth-Blocking peptides as Nutrition-Sensitive signals for insulin secretion and body size regulation

    PLOS Biology 14:e1002392.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002392

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Koyama T
    2. Mirth CK

    (2018) Unravelling the diversity of mechanisms through which nutrition regulates body size in insects

    Current Opinion in Insect Science 25:1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2017.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. LaFever L
    2. Drummond-Barbosa D

    (2005) Direct control of germline stem cell division and cyst growth by neural insulin in Drosophila

    Science 309:1071–1073.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111410

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Leevers SJ
    2. Weinkove D
    3. MacDougall LK
    4. Hafen E
    5. Waterfield MD

    (1996) The Drosophila phosphoinositide 3-kinase Dp110 promotes cell growth

    The EMBO Journal 15:6584–6594.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb01049.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Lefranc A
    2. Bundgaard J

    (2000) The influence of male and female body size on copulation duration and fecundity in Drosophila melanogaster

    Hereditas 132:243–247.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.2000.00243.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Lesperance DNA
    2. Broderick NA

    (2020) Meta-analysis of Diets Used in Drosophila Microbiome Research and Introduction of the Drosophila Dietary Composition Calculator (DDCC)

    G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 10:2207–2211.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.120.401235

    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Lewis EB

    (1960)

    A new standard food medium

    Drosophila Information Service 34:117–118.

    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Lin KY
    2. Hsu HJ

    (2020) Regulation of adult female germline stem cells by nutrient-responsive signaling

    Current Opinion in Insect Science 37:16–22.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2019.10.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Linneweber GA
    2. Jacobson J
    3. Busch KE
    4. Hudry B
    5. Christov CP
    6. Dormann D
    7. Yuan M
    8. Otani T
    9. Knust E
    10. de Bono M
    11. Miguel-Aliaga I

    (2014) Neuronal control of metabolism through nutrient-dependent modulation of tracheal branching

    Cell 156:69–83.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.12.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Liu Y
    2. Liao S
    3. Veenstra JA
    4. Nässel DR

    (2016) Drosophila insulin-like peptide 1 (DILP1) is transiently expressed during non-feeding stages and reproductive dormancy

    Scientific Reports 6:26620.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26620

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Magwere T
    2. Chapman T
    3. Partridge L

    (2004) Sex differences in the effect of dietary restriction on life span and mortality rates in female and male Drosophila melanogaster

    The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 59:B3–B9.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/59.1.B3

    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Marshall L
     2. Rideout EJ
     3. Grewal SS

     (2012) Nutrient/TOR-dependent regulation of RNA polymerase III controls tissue and organismal growth in Drosophila

     The EMBO Journal 31:1916–1930.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2012.33

     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Mathews KW
     2. Cavegn M
     3. Zwicky M

     (2017) Sexual dimorphism of body size is controlled by dosage of the X-Chromosomal Gene Myc and by the Sex-Determining Gene tra in Drosophila

     Genetics 205:1215–1228.

     https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.116.192260

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Mauvais-Jarvis F

     (2018) Gender differences in glucose homeostasis and diabetes

     Physiology & Behavior 187:20–23.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.08.016

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. Preprint

     1. McDonald JMC
     2. Nabili P
     3. Thorsen L
     4. Jeon S
     5. Shingleton A

     (2020) Sex-specific plasticity and the nutritional geometry of insulin-signaling gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster

     bioRxiv.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.16.385708

     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Mendes CC
     2. Mirth CK

     (2016) Stage-Specific Plasticity in Ovary Size Is Regulated by Insulin/Insulin-Like Growth Factor and Ecdysone Signaling in Drosophila

     Genetics 202:703–719.

     https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.115.179960

     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Meschi E
     2. Léopold P
     3. Delanoue R

     (2019) An EGF-Responsive neural circuit couples insulin secretion with nutrition in Drosophila

     Developmental Cell 48:76–86.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2018.11.029

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Millington JW
     2. Brownrigg GP
     3. Basner-Collins PJ
     4. Sun Z
     5. Rideout EJ

     (2021) Genetic manipulation of insulin/insulin-like growth factor signaling pathway activity has sex-biased effects on Drosophila body size

     G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkaa067

     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Millington JW
     2. Rideout EJ

     (2018) Sex differences in Drosophila development and physiology

     Current Opinion in Physiology 6:46–56.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cophys.2018.04.002

     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Mirth CK
     2. Piper MD

     (2017) Matching complex dietary landscapes with the signalling pathways that regulate life history traits

     Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 47:9–16.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2017.08.001

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Mirth CK
     2. Riddiford LM

     (2007) Size assessment and growth control: how adult size is determined in insects

     BioEssays 29:344–355.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20552

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Mirth CK
     2. Shingleton AW

     (2012) Integrating body and organ size in Drosophila: recent advances and outstanding problems

     Frontiers in Endocrinology 3:49.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2012.00049

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Murillo-Maldonado JM
     2. Sánchez-Chávez G
     3. Salgado LM
     4. Salceda R
     5. Riesgo-Escovar JR

     (2011) Drosophila insulin pathway mutants affect visual physiology and brain function besides growth, lipid, and carbohydrate metabolism

     Diabetes 60:1632–1636.

     https://doi.org/10.2337/db10-1288

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Nässel DR
     2. Vanden Broeck J

     (2016) Insulin/IGF signaling in Drosophila and other insects: factors that regulate production, release and post-release action of the insulin-like peptides

     Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 73:271–290.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-015-2063-3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Neville MC
     2. Nojima T
     3. Ashley E
     4. Parker DJ
     5. Walker J
     6. Southall T
     7. Van de Sande B
     8. Marques AC
     9. Fischer B
     10. Brand AH
     11. Russell S
     12. Ritchie MG
     13. Aerts S
     14. Goodwin SF

     (2014) Male-specific fruitless isoforms target neurodevelopmental genes to specify a sexually dimorphic nervous system

     Current Biology 24:229–241.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.035

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Nijhout HF

     (2003) The control of body size in insects

     Developmental Biology 261:1–9.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-1606(03)00276-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Nijhout HF
     2. Riddiford LM
     3. Mirth C
     4. Shingleton AW
     5. Suzuki Y
     6. Callier V

     (2014) The developmental control of size in insects

     Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Developmental Biology 3:113–134.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/wdev.124

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Nojima T
     2. Neville MC
     3. Goodwin SF

     (2014) Fruitless isoforms and target genes specify the sexually dimorphic nervous system underlying Drosophila reproductive behavior

     Fly 8:95–100.

     https://doi.org/10.4161/fly.29132

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Nowak K
     2. Seisenbacher G
     3. Hafen E
     4. Stocker H

     (2013) Nutrient restriction enhances the proliferative potential of cells lacking the tumor suppressor PTEN in mitotic tissues

     eLife 2:e00380.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00380

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Okamoto N
     2. Yamanaka N
     3. Yagi Y
     4. Nishida Y
     5. Kataoka H
     6. O'Connor MB
     7. Mizoguchi A

     (2009) A fat body-derived IGF-like peptide regulates postfeeding growth in Drosophila

     Developmental Cell 17:885–891.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2009.10.008

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Okamoto N
     2. Nakamori R
     3. Murai T
     4. Yamauchi Y
     5. Masuda A
     6. Nishimura T

     (2013) A secreted decoy of InR antagonizes insulin/IGF signaling to restrict body growth in Drosophila

     Genes & Development 27:87–97.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.204479.112

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Okamoto N
     2. Nishimura T

     (2015) Signaling from Glia and cholinergic neurons controls Nutrient-Dependent production of an Insulin-like peptide for Drosophila Body Growth

     Developmental Cell 35:295–310.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2015.10.003

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Oldham S
     2. Stocker H
     3. Laffargue M
     4. Wittwer F
     5. Wymann M
     6. Hafen E

     (2002) The Drosophila insulin/IGF receptor controls growth and size by modulating PtdInsP(3) levels

     Development 129:4103–4109.

     https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-623

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Palm W
     2. Sampaio JL
     3. Brankatschk M
     4. Carvalho M
     5. Mahmoud A
     6. Shevchenko A
     7. Eaton S

     (2012) Lipoproteins in Drosophila melanogaster--assembly, function, and influence on tissue lipid composition

     PLOS Genetics 8:e1002828.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002828

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Park S
     2. Alfa RW
     3. Topper SM
     4. Kim GES
     5. Kockel L
     6. Kim SK

     (2014) A genetic strategy to measure circulating Drosophila Insulin Reveals Genes Regulating Insulin Production and Secretion

     PLOS Genetics 10:e1004555.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004555

     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Partridge L
     2. Ewing A
     3. Chandler A

     (1987) Male size and mating success in Drosophila melanogaster: the roles of male and female behaviour

     Animal Behaviour 35:555–562.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80281-6

     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Partridge L
     2. Barrie B
     3. Fowler K
     4. French V

     (1994) Evolution and development of body size and cell size in Drosophila melanogaster in response to temperature

     Evolution 48:1269–1276.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb05311.x

     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Partridge L
     2. Farquhar M

     (1983) Lifetime mating success of male fruitflies (Drosophila melanogaster) is related to their size

     Animal Behaviour 31:871–877.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80242-5

     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Pavlou HJ
     2. Lin AC
     3. Neville MC
     4. Nojima T
     5. Diao F
     6. Chen BE
     7. White BH
     8. Goodwin SF

     (2016) Neural circuitry coordinating male copulation

     eLife 5:e20713.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20713

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Poltilove RMK
     2. Jacobs AR
     3. Haft CR
     4. Xu P
     5. Taylor SI

     (2000) Characterization of Drosophila insulin receptor substrate

     Journal of Biological Chemistry 275:23346–23354.

     https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M003579200

     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Pomatto LCD
     2. Carney C
     3. Shen B
     4. Wong S
     5. Halaszynski K
     6. Salomon MP
     7. Davies KJA
     8. Tower J

     (2017) The mitochondrial lon protease is required for Age-Specific and Sex-Specific adaptation to oxidative stress

     Current Biology 27:1–15.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.10.044

     • Google Scholar
130. 1. Post S
     2. Karashchuk G
     3. Wade JD
     4. Sajid W
     5. De Meyts P
     6. Tatar M

     (2018) Drosophila Insulin-Like peptides DILP2 and DILP5 differentially stimulate cell signaling and glycogen phosphorylase to regulate longevity

     Frontiers in Endocrinology 9:245.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00245

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Post S
     2. Liao S
     3. Yamamoto R
     4. Veenstra JA
     5. Nässel DR
     6. Tatar M

     (2019) Drosophila insulin-like peptide dilp1 increases lifespan and glucagon-like akh expression epistatic to dilp2

     Aging Cell 18:e12863.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12863

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Puig O
     2. Tjian R

     (2005) Transcriptional feedback control of insulin receptor by dFOXO/FOXO1

     Genes & Development 19:2435–2446.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1340505

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Rajan A
     2. Perrimon N

     (2012) Drosophila cytokine unpaired 2 regulates physiological homeostasis by remotely controlling insulin secretion

     Cell 151:123–137.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.019

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Regan JC
     2. Khericha M
     3. Dobson AJ
     4. Bolukbasi E
     5. Rattanavirotkul N
     6. Partridge L

     (2016) Sex difference in pathology of the ageing gut mediates the greater response of female lifespan to dietary restriction

     eLife 5:e10956.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10956

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Regan JC
     2. Partridge L

     (2013) Gender and longevity: why do men die earlier than women? comparative and experimental evidence

     Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 27:467–479.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2013.05.016

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
136. 1. Rezával C
     2. Nojima T
     3. Neville MC
     4. Lin AC
     5. Goodwin SF

     (2014) Sexually dimorphic octopaminergic neurons modulate female postmating behaviors in Drosophila

     Current Biology 24:725–730.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.12.051

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Rezával C
     2. Pattnaik S
     3. Pavlou HJ
     4. Nojima T
     5. Brüggemeier B
     6. D'Souza LAD
     7. Dweck HKM
     8. Goodwin SF

     (2016) Activation of latent courtship circuitry in the brain of Drosophila Females Induces Male-like Behaviors

     Current Biology 26:2508–2515.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.07.021

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
138. 1. Richard DS
     2. Rybczynski R
     3. Wilson TG
     4. Wang Y
     5. Wayne ML
     6. Zhou Y
     7. Partridge L
     8. Harshman LG

     (2005) Insulin signaling is necessary for vitellogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster independent of the roles of juvenile hormone and ecdysteroids: female sterility of the chico1 insulin signaling mutation is autonomous to the ovary

     Journal of Insect Physiology 51:455–464.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2004.12.013

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
139. 1. Rideout EJ
     2. Dornan AJ
     3. Neville MC
     4. Eadie S
     5. Goodwin SF

     (2010) Control of sexual differentiation and behavior by the doublesex gene in Drosophila melanogaster

     Nature Neuroscience 13:458–466.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2515

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Rideout EJ
     2. Marshall L
     3. Grewal SS

     (2012) Drosophila RNA polymerase III repressor Maf1 controls body size and developmental timing by modulating tRNAiMet synthesis and systemic insulin signaling

     PNAS 109:1139–1144.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113311109

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Rideout EJ
     2. Narsaiya MS
     3. Grewal SS

     (2015) The sex determination gene transformer Regulates Male-Female Differences in Drosophila Body Size

     PLOS Genetics 11:e1005683.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005683

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Rintelen F
     2. Stocker H
     3. Thomas G
     4. Hafen E

     (2001) PDK1 regulates growth through akt and S6K in Drosophila

     PNAS 98:15020–15025.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.011318098

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
143. 1. Robertson FW

     (1957a) Studies in quantitative inheritance X. genetic variation of ovary size in Drosophila

     Journal of Genetics 55:410–427.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02984060

     • Google Scholar
144. 1. Robertson FW

     (1957b) Studies in quantitative inheritance XI. genetic and environmental correlation between body size and egg production in Drosophila melanogaster

     Journal of Genetics 55:428–443.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02984061

     • Google Scholar
145. 1. Robertson FW

     (1963) The ecological genetics of growth in Drosophila 6. the genetic correlation between the duration of the larval period and body size in relation to larval diet

     Genetical Research 4:74–92.

     https://doi.org/10.1017/S001667230000344X

     • Google Scholar
146. 1. Rodenfels J
     2. Lavrynenko O
     3. Ayciriex S
     4. Sampaio JL
     5. Carvalho M
     6. Shevchenko A
     7. Eaton S

     (2014) Production of systemically circulating hedgehog by the intestine couples nutrition to growth and development

     Genes & Development 28:2636–2651.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.249763.114

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
147. 1. Rulifson EJ
     2. Kim SK
     3. Nusse R

     (2002) Ablation of insulin-producing neurons in flies: growth and diabetic phenotypes

     Science 296:1118–1120.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070058

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
148. 1. Ryner LC
     2. Goodwin SF
     3. Castrillon DH
     4. Anand A
     5. Villella A
     6. Baker BS
     7. Hall JC
     8. Taylor BJ
     9. Wasserman SA

     (1996) Control of male sexual behavior and sexual orientation in Drosophila by the fruitless gene

     Cell 87:1079–1089.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81802-4

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
149. 1. Salz HK
     2. Erickson JW

     (2010) Sex determination in Drosophila: the view from the top

     Fly 4:60–70.

     https://doi.org/10.4161/fly.4.1.11277

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
150. 1. Sano H
     2. Nakamura A
     3. Texada MJ
     4. Truman JW
     5. Ishimoto H
     6. Kamikouchi A
     7. Nibu Y
     8. Kume K
     9. Ida T
     10. Kojima M

     (2015) The Nutrient-Responsive hormone CCHamide-2 controls growth by regulating Insulin-like peptides in the brain of Drosophila melanogaster

     PLOS Genetics 11:e1005209.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005209

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
151. 1. Sarikaya DP
     2. Belay AA
     3. Ahuja A
     4. Dorta A
     5. Green DA
     6. Extavour CG

     (2012) The roles of cell size and cell number in determining ovariole number in Drosophila

     Developmental Biology 363:279–289.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.12.017

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
152. 1. Sawala A
     2. Gould AP

     (2017) The sex of specific neurons controls female body growth in Drosophila

     PLOS Biology 15:e2002252.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002252

     • Google Scholar
153. 1. Schindelin J
     2. Arganda-Carreras I
     3. Frise E
     4. Kaynig V
     5. Longair M
     6. Pietzsch T
     7. Preibisch S
     8. Rueden C
     9. Saalfeld S
     10. Schmid B
     11. Tinevez JY
     12. White DJ
     13. Hartenstein V
     14. Eliceiri K
     15. Tomancak P
     16. Cardona A

     (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis

     Nature Methods 9:676–682.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
154. 1. Selman C
     2. Lingard S
     3. Choudhury AI
     4. Batterham RL
     5. Claret M
     6. Clements M
     7. Ramadani F
     8. Okkenhaug K
     9. Schuster E
     10. Blanc E
     11. Piper MD
     12. Al‐Qassab H
     13. Speakman JR
     14. Carmignac D
     15. Robinson ICA
     16. Thornton JM
     17. Gems D
     18. Partridge L
     19. Withers DJ

     (2008) Evidence for lifespan extension and delayed age–related biomarkers in insulin receptor substrate 1 null mice

     The FASEB Journal 22:807–818.

     https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9261com

     • Google Scholar
155. 1. Semaniuk UV
     2. Gospodaryov DV
     3. Feden'ko KM
     4. Yurkevych IS
     5. Vaiserman AM
     6. Storey KB
     7. Simpson SJ
     8. Lushchak O

     (2018) Insulin-Like peptides regulate feeding preference and metabolism in Drosophila

     Frontiers in Physiology 9:1083.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01083

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
156. 1. Shingleton AW
     2. Das J
     3. Vinicius L
     4. Stern DL

     (2005) The temporal requirements for insulin signaling during development in Drosophila

     PLOS Biology 3:e289.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030289

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
157. 1. Shingleton AW
     2. Masandika JR
     3. Thorsen LS
     4. Zhu Y
     5. Mirth CK

     (2017) The sex-specific effects of diet quality versus quantity on morphology in Drosophila melanogaster

     Royal Society Open Science 4:170375.

     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170375

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
158. 1. Siera SG
     2. Cline TW

     (2008) Sexual back talk with evolutionary implications: stimulation of the Drosophila sex-determination gene sex-lethal by its target transformer

     Genetics 180:1963–1981.

     https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.108.093898

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
159. 1. Slaidina M
     2. Delanoue R
     3. Gronke S
     4. Partridge L
     5. Léopold P

     (2009) A Drosophila insulin-like peptide promotes growth during nonfeeding states

     Developmental Cell 17:874–884.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2009.10.009

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
160. 1. Sosnowski BA
     2. Belote JM
     3. McKeown M

     (1989) Sex-specific alternative splicing of RNA from the transformer gene results from sequence-dependent splice site blockage

     Cell 58:449–459.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(89)90426-1

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
161. 1. Stafford JW
     2. Lynd KM
     3. Jung AY
     4. Gordon MD

     (2012) Integration of taste and calorie sensing in Drosophila

     Journal of Neuroscience 32:14767–14774.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1887-12.2012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
162. 1. Stillwell RC
     2. Blanckenhorn WU
     3. Teder T
     4. Davidowitz G
     5. Fox CW

     (2010) Sex differences in phenotypic plasticity affect variation in sexual size dimorphism in insects: from physiology to evolution

     Annual Review of Entomology 55:227–245.

     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085500

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
163. 1. Sturtevant AH

     (1945)

     A gene in Drosophila melanogaster That Transforms Females into Males

     Genetics 30:297–299.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
164. 1. Su YH
     2. Rastegri E
     3. Kao SH
     4. Lai CM
     5. Lin KY
     6. Liao HY
     7. Wang MH
     8. Hsu HJ

     (2018) Diet regulates membrane extension and survival of niche escort cells for germline homeostasis via insulin signaling

     Development 145:7.

     https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.159186

     • Google Scholar
165. 1. Suzawa M
     2. Muhammad NM
     3. Joseph BS
     4. Bland ML

     (2019) The toll signaling pathway targets the Insulin-like peptide Dilp6 to inhibit growth in Drosophila

     Cell Reports 28:1439–1446.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2019.07.015

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
166. 1. Tatar M
     2. Kopelman A
     3. Epstein D
     4. Tu MP
     5. Yin CM
     6. Garofalo RS

     (2001) A mutant Drosophila insulin receptor homolog that extends life-span and impairs neuroendocrine function

     Science 292:107–110.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057987

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
167. 1. Teder T
     2. Tammaru T

     (2005) Sexual size dimorphism within species increases with body size in insects

     Oikos 108:321–334.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13609.x

     • Google Scholar
168. 1. Teleman AA

     (2010) Molecular mechanisms of metabolic regulation by insulin in Drosophila

     Biochemical Journal 425:13–26.

     https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20091181

     • Google Scholar
169. 1. Testa ND
     2. Ghosh SM
     3. Shingleton AW

     (2013) Sex-specific weight loss mediates sexual size dimorphism in Drosophila melanogaster

     PLOS ONE 8:e58936.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058936

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
170. 1. Thurmond J
     2. Goodman JL
     3. Strelets VB
     4. Attrill H
     5. Gramates LS
     6. Marygold SJ
     7. Matthews BB
     8. Millburn G
     9. Antonazzo G
     10. Trovisco V
     11. Kaufman TC
     12. Calvi BR
     13. Perrimon N
     14. Gelbart SR
     15. Agapite J
     16. Broll K
     17. Crosby L
     18. Santos Gdos
     19. Emmert D
     20. Gramates LS
     21. Falls K
     22. Jenkins V
     23. Matthews B
     24. Sutherland C
     25. Tabone C
     26. Zhou P
     27. Zytkovicz M
     28. Brown N
     29. Antonazzo G
     30. Attrill H
     31. Garapati P
     32. Holmes A
     33. Larkin A
     34. Marygold S
     35. Millburn G
     36. Pilgrim C
     37. Trovisco V
     38. Urbano P
     39. Kaufman T
     40. Calvi B
     41. Czoch B
     42. Goodman J
     43. Strelets V
     44. Thurmond J
     45. Cripps R
     46. Baker P

     (2019) FlyBase 2.0: the next generation

     Nucleic Acids Research 47:D759–D765.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1003

     • Google Scholar
171. 1. Tiefenböck SK
     2. Baltzer C
     3. Egli NA
     4. Frei C

     (2010) The Drosophila PGC-1 homologue spargel coordinates mitochondrial activity to insulin signalling

     The EMBO Journal 29:171–183.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.330

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
172. 1. Tower J

     (2015) Mitochondrial maintenance failure in aging and role of sexual dimorphism

     Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 576:17–31.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abb.2014.10.008

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
173. 1. Tower J

     (2017) Sex-Specific gene expression and life span regulation

     Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 28:735–747.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2017.07.002

     • Google Scholar
174. 1. Tramunt B
     2. Smati S
     3. Grandgeorge N
     4. Lenfant F
     5. Arnal JF
     6. Montagner A
     7. Gourdy P

     (2020) Sex differences in metabolic regulation and diabetes susceptibility

     Diabetologia 63:453–461.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-019-05040-3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
175. 1. Tu MP
     2. Tatar M

     (2003) Juvenile diet restriction and the aging and reproduction of adult Drosophila melanogaster

     Aging Cell 2:327–333.

     https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1474-9728.2003.00064.x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
176. 1. Ugrankar R
     2. Theodoropoulos P
     3. Akdemir F
     4. Henne WM
     5. Graff JM

     (2018) Circulating glucose levels inversely correlate with Drosophila larval feeding through insulin signaling and SLC5A11

     Communications Biology 1:110.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-018-0109-4

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
177. 1. Van Heemst D
     2. Beekman M
     3. Mooijaart SP
     4. Heijmans BT
     5. Brandt BW
     6. Zwaan BJ
     7. Slagboom PE
     8. Westendorp RG

     (2005) Reduced insulin/IGF-1 signalling and human longevity

     Aging Cell 4:79–85.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-9728.2005.00148.x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
178. 1. Verdu J
     2. Buratovich MA
     3. Wilder EL
     4. Birnbaum MJ

     (1999) Cell-autonomous regulation of cell and organ growth in Drosophila by akt/PKB

     Nature Cell Biology 1:500–506.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/70293

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
179. 1. von Philipsborn AC
     2. Jörchel S
     3. Tirian L
     4. Demir E
     5. Morita T
     6. Stern DL
     7. Dickson BJ

     (2014) Cellular and behavioral functions of fruitless isoforms in Drosophila courtship

     Current Biology 24:242–251.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.12.015

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
180. 1. Wat LW
     2. Chao C
     3. Bartlett R
     4. Buchanan JL
     5. Millington JW
     6. Chih HJ
     7. Chowdhury ZS
     8. Biswas P
     9. Huang V
     10. Shin LJ
     11. Wang LC
     12. Gauthier ML
     13. Barone MC
     14. Montooth KL
     15. Welte MA
     16. Rideout EJ

     (2020) A role for triglyceride lipase Brummer in the regulation of sex differences in Drosophila fat storage and breakdown

     PLOS Biology 18:e3000595.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000595

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
181. 1. Weinkove D
     2. Neufeld TP
     3. Twardzik T
     4. Waterfield MD
     5. Leevers SJ

     (1999) Regulation of imaginal disc cell size, cell number and organ size by Drosophila class I(A) phosphoinositide 3-kinase and its adaptor

     Current Biology 9:1019–1029.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(99)80450-3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
182. 1. Werz C
     2. Köhler K
     3. Hafen E
     4. Stocker H

     (2009) The Drosophila SH2B family adaptor lnk acts in parallel to Chico in the insulin signaling pathway

     PLOS Genetics 5:e1000596.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000596

     • Google Scholar
183. 1. Wood JG
     2. Schwer B
     3. Wickremesinghe PC
     4. Hartnett DA
     5. Burhenn L
     6. Garcia M
     7. Li M
     8. Verdin E
     9. Helfand SL

     (2018) Sirt4 is a mitochondrial regulator of metabolism and lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster

     PNAS 115:1564–1569.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720673115

     • Google Scholar
184. 1. Woodling NS
     2. Aleyakpo B
     3. Dyson MC
     4. Minkley LJ
     5. Rajasingam A
     6. Dobson AJ
     7. Leung KHC
     8. Pomposova S
     9. Fuentealba M
     10. Alic N
     11. Partridge L

     (2020) The neuronal receptor tyrosine kinase alk is a target for longevity

     Aging Cell 19:e13137.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.13137

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
185. 1. Wu Q
     2. Yu G
     3. Cheng X
     4. Gao Y
     5. Fan X
     6. Yang D
     7. Xie M
     8. Wang T
     9. Piper MDW
     10. Yang M

     (2020) Sexual dimorphism in the nutritional requirement for adult lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster

     Aging Cell 19:e13120.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.13120

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
186. 1. Zhang H
     2. Liu J
     3. Li CR
     4. Momen B
     5. Kohanski RA
     6. Pick L

     (2009) Deletion of Drosophila insulin-like peptides causes growth defects and metabolic abnormalities

     PNAS 106:19617–19622.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905083106

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
187. 1. Zinke I
     2. Schütz CS
     3. Katzenberger JD
     4. Bauer M
     5. Pankratz MJ

     (2002) Nutrient control of gene expression in Drosophila: microarray analysis of starvation and sugar-dependent response

     The EMBO Journal 21:6162–6173.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdf600

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

The insulin pathway differentially affects sex-specific phenotypes in most species, yet the molecular mechanisms underlying male-female differences in its regulation remain unclear. In this study, Rideout and colleagues investigated how females grow bigger in a protein-rich diet and unraveled that the sex determination gene, transformer, promotes a diet-induced trigger in Insulin signaling via stunted and srl/PGC-1a. This finding provides interesting genetic evidence for sex differences in complex phenotypes of development, physiology, and diseases.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Female-specific upregulation of insulin pathway activity mediates the sex difference in Drosophila body size plasticity" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by Utpal Banerjee as the Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

We would like to draw your attention to changes in our revision policy that we have made in response to COVID-19 (https://elifesciences.org/articles/57162). Specifically, when editors judge that a submitted work as a whole belongs in eLife but that some conclusions require a modest amount of additional new data, as they do with your paper, we are asking that the manuscript be revised to either limit claims to those supported by data in hand, or to explicitly state that the relevant conclusions require additional supporting data.

Our expectation is that the authors will eventually carry out the additional experiments and report on how they affect the relevant conclusions either in a preprint on bioRxiv or medRxiv, or if appropriate, as a Research Advance in eLife, either of which would be linked to the original paper.

Summary:

This is an interesting study addressing how sex-specific differences in endocrine signaling influences nutrient-dependent body size plasticity. The authors demonstrated that females, but not males, increase growth when raised on a high protein diet and revealed that growth difference results for sex-specific regulation of the insulin signaling pathway. Further, the authors identified that stunted expression is required for nutrient-dependent body size plasticity. Finally, the authors showed that the sex determination gene transformer is required for the female-specific expression of stunted on the high protein diet.

All the reviewers found the study very interesting, well designed and performed, and clearly written. Reviewers also agreed that the main finding of this study is novel and will be of broad interest in the field. However, at the same time, the reviewers raised several concerns about relatively weak points that need to be adequately addressed.

Essential revisions:

1) Identify the link between Tra and sun (related to reviewer 1 concerns 1-4, reviewer 2 concerns 4-5).

It will be critical to show the levels of circulating sun in females 1Y/2Y and males 1Y/2Y and/or the level of TOR signaling in the fat body in the four conditions.

2) Verify spargel mutant phenotype (e.g. sun expression in the spargel mutant) (related to reviewer 3).

3) Explain/repeat variable expressions of the IIS markers in males and females (reviewer 2 concerns 1-2).

4) Explain the relevance of 4EBP expression in r4>sun RNAi (2Y) condition (reviewer 2 concern 3).

5) Statistical analysis.

Some of these points may require additional experimental data and analyses. I have attached the original comments to clearly deliver reviewers' specific points.

Reviewer #1:

In this study, Rideout and colleagues investigated novel mechanisms underlying the female-specific size plasticity upon high protein diet and identified dilp2, sun, and tra as key molecules for the size control. Overall, experiments are well-performed, analyzed, and presented clearly. Also, the manuscript is well-written.

In the senior author's previous study, the author already showed a novel role for tra in the female body size determination through dilp2 in the IPCs under normal diet conditions. The function sun in the female-size plasticity is first shown and is the novel point of this work, and therefore, mechanisms involving tra-sun and sun-dilp2 require additional verifications. The manuscript describes the functions of tra, sun, or dilp2 on its own without showing the genetic/biochemical relationships of the three.

1) Is sun a direct transcriptional target of tra? The key question that needs to be addressed is whether tra functions upstream of sun and tra plays a role in the sun transcription.

2) Related to the above question, is sun the only target of tra? The authors investigated possible roles of humoral factors; however, downstream targets of tra may not be necessarily humoral factors.

3) No proof for the genetic relationship between tra-sun and sun-dilp2 is shown. For example, would overexpression of sun in tra mutant females rescue the nutrient-dependent growth?

4) Is mthl in the IPCs involved in this pathway?

5) To separate the body size difference and body size plasticity, it would be better to show the weight or volume changed (2Y minus 1Y) in different conditions for the plasticity, and absolute weight/volume numbers for growth.

6) It is interesting that InR/sun also controls egg production. However, without providing a detailed mechanism underlying this phenotype, this part makes the paper more complicated. Is tra also involved? Is this phenotype solely due to dilp2 and subsequent activation of InR in the ovary?

Reviewer #2:

This is an interesting study addressing the molecular basis of nutrient-dependent body size plasticity in Drosophila. The authors re-evaluate the sex-difference in nutritional plasticity in Drosophila and show that yeast (amino acids?) is the main component that drives plasticity in females, while males remain insensitive to increased yeast content (at least within the range of the experimental conditions used in the present study). They further imply insulin/IGF signaling (IIS) in this control, which is somehow expected. The novelty comes from the elucidation of the role of Stunted (Sun), a fat body factor controlling the level of circulating Drosophila insulin-like peptides (dilps), in the phenotypic plasticity observed in females. Whereas sun expression is increased in females raised on rich versus poor medium, this is not true in males. By knocking down sun in the fat body of larvae, they demonstrate the need for sun in this sex-specific regulation, and link it to the function of the sex-determination factor Transformer (Tra).

The data globally fits with the conclusions and the paper is rather convincing. It definitely brings a novel molecular twist to the interesting question of sex-specific nutritional plasticity. However, there are several issues with the experimental aspects that need to be corrected before the paper is ready.

1) Figure 2A,B: the markers for IIS show no variation in males fed 1Y or 2Y. However, this is not the case in the same experiments presented in Figure 4—figure supplement 2A, where Inr and 4E-BP go down in 2Y condition, as in females (see r4/+ and +>sun-RNAi controls). This casts doubts on the reproducibility of such analysis.

2) Figure 4—figure supplement 1C,D: statistical significance should compare +>sun-RNAi and r4>sun-RNAi, since they correspond to lower control values.

3) What is the significance of 4E-BP levels being increased in 2Y in r4>sun-RNAi conditions (both in females and males)? This would mean that IIS is generally reduced, which does not make sense. Therefore, what is the value of measuring 4E-BP as a marker for IIS?

4) Sun is secreted in the hemolymph and its circulating levels are controlled by TORC1 activity in FB cells (Delanoue et al., 2016). Therefore, an evaluation of circulating levels of Sun should be provided to better characterize female and male physiological responses to 1Y vs 2Y. Indeed, the results presented in Figure 4—figure supplement 4AB suggest that dysregulation of sun at the transcriptional level does not alter nutritional response in females and males. Looking at this figure, it is questionable whether nutritional plasticity is different in males and females of the r4>sun genotype.

5) Again, concerning Sun regulation, what is the link between Tra activiy and sun expression in response to Y content in females? Can the authors relay the level of Sun in 1Y vs 2Y to a difference in TOR activity specifically in female FB cells?

Reviewer #3:

This very well written manuscript by Millington et al., uses the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster to understand how sex-specific differences in endocrine signaling influences nutrient-dependent body size plasticity. Through a series of well-designed experiments, the authors demonstrate that females, but not males, exhibit increase growth when raised on a diet with twice the nutrient diet of standard fly food. Through a series of logical experiments, the authors reveal that growth difference results for sex-specific regulation of the insulin signaling pathway – female, but not male, flies express increased levels of the humeral factor stunted, which is known to promote dilp2 secretion from the IPCs. The authors further demonstrate that the manner by which female flies regulated stunted expression is required for nutrient-dependent body size plasticity. Finally, the authors demonstrate that the sex determination gene transformer is required for female-specific expression of stunted on the high nutrient diet.

Overall, I found this a very nice story that works its way from a simple observation to a molecular mechanism. The story will be of broad interest and highlights the importance of studying sex-specific differences in animal growth and development. I have a few suggested revisions, but overall enjoyed reading the manuscript.

1) The authors used animals that are heterozygous for mutations in the gene spargel as a substitute for analyzing stunted mutants. While I understand the necessity of this experiment, spargel mutants have a wide range of metabolic defects that are independent of stunted and I'm concerned that this experiment requires a leap of faith. At a minimum, I'd like to see verification that heterozygous spargel mutants exhibit significant changes in stunted gene expression.

Essential revisions:

1) Identify the link between Tra and sun (related to reviewer 1 concerns 1-4, reviewer 2 concerns 4-5).

We were also interested in the link between Tra and sun. To address Reviewer concerns, we completed several experiments, which we summarize below.

a) What is the link between Tra and sun mRNA levels?

We added a significant amount of data to the revised manuscript to indicate that spargel (srl), the Drosophila homolog of PGC-1a, represents one key link between Tra and the nutrient-dependent regulation of sun mRNA levels. In females, we show that heterozygous loss of srl blocks the nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA levels in a protein-rich diet (Figure 5A). In Tra-expressing males, heterozygous loss of srl similarly blocks the nutrient-dependent increase in sun mRNA levels (Figure 5D). Together, these experiments indicate that Srl is one link between Tra and the nutrient-dependent regulation of sun mRNA levels. Of note, srl¹ heterozygotes have no generalized growth defects (Figure 5B, C), suggesting these larvae do not have wide-ranging metabolic defects.

b) What is the genetic relationship between tra and sun?

In the revised version of our manuscript, we performed genetic epistasis experiments that suggest both Srl and sun lie downstream of Tra in regulating the sex difference in nutrient-dependent body size plasticity. For example, heterozygous loss of srl blocked the Tra-dependent upregulation of IIS activity in 2Y (Figure 5E) and eliminated the increased nutrient-dependent body size plasticity we observed in Tra-expressing males (Figure 5F).

Fat body-specific expression of a UAS-sun-RNAi transgene in Tra-expressing males similarly abolished the nutrient-dependent increase in body size (Figure 4H). Importantly, we rescued the smaller body size of tra mutant females simply by overexpressing sun in the fat body (Figure 4—figure supplement 2A). Together, these experiments support a model in which Tra influences phenotypic plasticity via Srl-mediated regulation of sun mRNA levels, which we communicate to readers by including a new figure summarizing our findings (Figure 7).

c) Is sun a direct Tra target?

Our discovery of a link between sex determination gene Tra and metabolic regulator Srl significantly advances our understanding of how Tra influences gene expression, as known Tra targets dsx and fru do not affect body size or several other Tra-regulated phenotypes (Rideout et al., 2015; Hudry et al., 2016; Garner et al., 2018). While we were not able to determine whether sun is a direct target of splicing factor Tra, we added text to the revised manuscript to highlight the importance of this question for future studies on Tra, Srl, and sun.

Importantly, while Srl targets other than sun were also regulated in a sex-specific and Tra-dependent manner (Figure 5—figure supplement 2A-D), two other Srl targets did not reproduce the effects of sun on phenotypic plasticity (Figure 5—figure supplement 2E-H). This strengthens our finding that sun is a key factor that impacts the sex difference in nutrient-dependent body size plasticity. However, to acknowledge that we cannot rule out all Srl targets in regulating phenotypic plasticity we added text to this effect in the revised manuscript (Discussion).

d) What is the role of sun mRNA levels in regulating body size?

Identifying Srl as the link between Tra and the regulation of sun mRNA levels suggests that an increase in sun mRNA levels should be able to increase body size. In our 1Y and 2Y diets, we found that sun overexpression in the fat body was sufficient to enhance body size in both sexes (Figure 3—figure supplement 7A, B). This finding indicates that increased sun mRNA levels are able to increase body size, and supports a model in which the nutrient-dependent increase in sun mRNA levels promotes growth to augment body size.

While this finding differs from results reported in a previous study (Delanoue et al., 2016), when we repeated their experiment using identical dietary conditions we found a male-specific increase in body size (Figure 3—figure supplement 8A). Interestingly, this increase in male body size was lost when we combined body size data from both sexes (Figure 3—figure supplement 8B). This indicates that the previous study failed to see a body size increase with sun overexpression due to a combination of dietary factors (we do not supplement food with live yeast to maintain tight control over nutrient content) and not analyzing body size data by sex. To clarify this point for readers, we added text to the revised manuscript (subsection “Increased nutrient-dependent body size plasticity in females promotes fecundity in a protein-rich context”).

e) Circulating Sun levels in males and females.

We were fortunate to receive enough anti-Sun antibody to perform one Western blot to measure hemolymph Sun levels in males and females (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A). Our quantification of the hemolymph Sun blot suggests that levels are nearly twice as high in females as they are in males reared in 2Y (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A). This finding supports a model in which higher levels of circulating Sun in females contribute to their larger body size.

f) Fat body TOR levels.

A previous study showed an important role for the Target-of-Rapamycin (TOR) pathway in mediating the nutrient-dependent secretion of Sun (Delanoue et al., 2016). When we measured fat body TOR activity using an antibody directed against a phosphorylated form of ribosomal protein S6 kinase (pS6k), a known TOR target, we saw no differences in pS6k levels between males and females in either the 1Y or the 2Y diet (Figure 5—figure supplement 1A-D). Similarly, when we examined changes to pS6k levels between control females and tra mutant females, there was no significant difference in fat body pS6k levels between females with and without Tra function on either diet (Figure 5—figure supplement 1F, G).

Therefore, while TOR activity undoubtedly plays a role in regulating Sun secretion, we did not find evidence of sex-specific or tra-dependent regulation of fat body TOR activity. This aligns with our previous finding that treating larvae with TOR inhibitor rapamycin does not have sex-biased effects on body size (Rideout et al., 2015). Because we show that changes to sun mRNA levels were sufficient to augment body size (Figure 3—figure supplement 7A, B), and that fat body TOR activity does not affect sun mRNA levels (Figure 5—figure supplement 1E), the data in our revised manuscript supports a role for the sex-specific regulation of sun mRNA levels via Srl as one mechanism underlying the male-female difference in body size plasticity.

2) Verify spargel mutant phenotype (e.g. sun expression in the spargel mutant) (related to reviewer 3).

Reviewer 3 raised important points about our use of srl¹/+ larvae that we addressed in our revised manuscript. First, to ensure that heterogyzous loss of srl does not cause generalized developmental defects, we measured body size in 1Y. We found no body size reduction in srl¹/+ larvae of either sex compared with w1118 control larvae (Figure 5B, C). Given that body size encompasses the activity of many metabolic genes and pathways (Boulan et al., 2015), this suggests that srl¹/+ larvae do not have generalized metabolic defects.

Second, we verified that heterozygous loss of srl blocks the nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA levels. In w1118 females, we normally observe a nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun RNA in larvae raised on 2Y compared with larvae cultured on 1Y (Figure 5A); however, the nutrient-dependent increase in sun mRNA was blunted in srl¹/+ females reared on 2Y compared with genotype-matched controls raised on 1Y (Figure 5A). Similarly, in Tra-expressing males (da>tra^F), the nutrient-dependent increase in sun mRNA levels was blocked when those males were heterozygous for srl¹ (Figure 4F and Figure 5D).

Taken together, the data we present in our revised manuscript suggests that Srl plays a key role in the nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA levels in a protein-rich context, and that Srl mediates Tra’s effects on sun mRNA regulation.

3) Explain/repeat variable expressions of the IIS markers in males and females (reviewer 2 concerns 1-2).

We also noticed variability in levels of genes we used to quantify IIS activity between different male groups. In our original manuscript, we did not apply statistical tests to detect potential sex:diet and genotype:diet interactions in our gene expression data. In our revised manuscript, we improved our statistical analysis by applying these more rigorous tests to all of our gene expression data. Further, we identified an established way of displaying and analyzing co-regulated genes (e.g., Blaschke et al., 2013; Hudry et al., 2019) so that we no longer need to divide our panels displaying mRNA levels of Foxo target genes between the main and supplemental figures.

In our revised manuscript, we show that levels of Foxo target genes were significantly lower in all control females reared in 2Y compared with females reared in 1Y (Figure 1E, Figure 2A, Figure 3E, Figure 4A). Given that high levels of IIS activity repress Foxo target genes, this indicates higher IIS activity in females reared in 2Y. This improved statistical analysis also shows that the magnitude of the increase in IIS activity in dilp2 mutant females, females with fat body loss of sun, and tra mutant females was significantly smaller than in control females (Figure 2A, Figure 3E, Figure 4A). This indicates that females with reduced dilp2, fat body sun, and tra were not able to upregulate IIS activity as much as control females.

When we repeated several key experiments in males, we still observed some variation in IIS readouts: males had either no change in Foxo target gene expression (Figure 1G), or a small but significant decrease in Foxo target genes (Figure 2B, Figure 3F). This suggested to us that males normally have a small but significant nutrient-dependent increase in IIS activity. To acknowledge this fact, we changed all instances of “female-specific” to “female-biased” in our revised manuscript when we refer to IIS activity.

Despite these minor differences among male genotypes, however, the most important conclusion we reached in our revised manuscript was that the magnitude of any nutrient-dependent changes to Foxo target genes in control males was always smaller than in genotype-matched females (sex:diet interactions in Supplementary file 1). This consistent and reproducible female-biased upregulation of IIS activity across all genotypes therefore supports one main finding of our paper: that a sex difference exists in the nutrient-dependent upregulation of IIS activity.

To display the female-biased decrease in Foxo target gene expression in a protein-rich diet more clearly, we included the % change in Foxo target gene expression for each genotype. This makes it is easier for readers to appreciate the sex difference in magnitude of nutrient-dependent changes to Foxo target gene expression.

4) Explain the relevance of 4EBP expression in r4>sun RNAi (2Y) condition (reviewer 2 concern 3).

4E-BP was one Foxo target gene among three Foxo targets that we measured to quantify IIS activity. In our revised manuscript, we sought a more rigorous way of analyzing gene expression for all three Foxo target genes so that we would not have to draw conclusions based on individual genes (e.g. 4E-BP). One established way we found to analyze co-regulated genes was to examine the behaviour of the genes as a group (Blaschke et al., 2013; Hudry et al., 2019). This way of analyzing gene expression allowed us to display Foxo target genes in a single graph, and to perform better statistical tests to detect genotype:diet and sex:diet interactions.

Using this improved statistical analysis, we showed that in r4>+ and +>UAS-sun-RNAi females there was a significant decrease in Foxo target gene expression between 1Y and 2Y that was absent in r4>UAS-sun-RNAi females (Figure 3E). Given that there was a significant diet:genotype interaction (p < 0.0001), this suggests that the magnitude of change in Foxo target gene expression was different between r4>UAS-sun-RNAi females and r4>+ and +>UAS-sun-RNAi controls. In contrast, there was no significant diet:genotype interaction between r4>UAS-sun-RNAi males and control males (p = 0.1068), indicating that Foxo target gene expression was not different in r4>sun-RNAi males compared with r4>+ and +>UAS-sun-RNAi control males (Figure 3F).

When we examined sex:diet interactions, we found that the magnitude of the nutrient-dependent change to Foxo target genes was greater in females than males for the r4>+ and +>UAS-sun-RNAi genotype, but not the r4>UAS-sun-RNAi genotype (p = 0.0166, 0.0119, and 0.1121, respectively). Thus, our improved statistical analysis of gene expression data indicates that the loss of fat body sun blocks the nutrient-dependent increase in IIS activity in females, but not in males.

5) Statistical analysis.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out that our original figures did not clearly communicate the fact that differences were only indicated as significant if the experimental genotype (e.g. r4>sun-RNAi) was significantly different from all control genotypes (e.g. r4>+ and +>sun-RNAi). In our revised manuscript, we added lines to each graph to show all statistical comparisons that were made. The p-values for all multiple comparisons can be found in Supplementary file 1.

Reviewer #1:

In this study, Rideout and colleagues investigated novel mechanisms underlying the female-specific size plasticity upon high protein diet and identified dilp2, sun, and tra as key molecules for the size control. Overall, experiments are well-performed, analyzed, and presented clearly. Also, the manuscript is well-written.

In the senior author's previous study, the author already showed a novel role for tra in the female body size determination through dilp2 in the IPCs under normal diet conditions. The function sun in the female-size plasticity is first shown and is the novel point of this work, and therefore, mechanisms involving tra-sun and sun-dilp2 require additional verifications. The manuscript describes the functions of tra, sun, or dilp2 on its own without showing the genetic/biochemical relationships of the three.

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments on our manuscript, and for their suggestion that we examine the relationships between tra, sun, and dilp2 in more detail. We describe specific experiments in detail below.

1) Is sun a direct transcriptional target of tra?

For the sake of clarity, we answered this question below our two-part comments on whether tra functions upstream of sun transcription.

The key question that needs to be addressed is whether tra functions upstream of sun

In our original paper, we showed that females lacking tra were unable to upregulate sun mRNA levels when raised in a protein-rich diet (Figure 4B), whereas Tra expression in males was sufficient to enable the nutrient-dependent increase in sun mRNA levels in the 2Y diet (Figure 4F). While this suggests that tra may lie upstream of sun, in our revised manuscript we used a genetic approach to strengthen our conclusions about the relationship between Tra and sun. Further, we identify Srl as one link between Tra and sun mRNA levels (next point).

In our revised manuscript, we show that fat body-specific sun knockdown blocked the nutrient-dependent increase in body size we observed in Tra-expressing males (Figure 4H). Further, we demonstrate that fat body sun overexpression was sufficient to restore the smaller body size of tra mutant females raised in a protein-rich diet (Figure 4—figure supplement 2A), suggesting that sun lies downstream of Tra in promoting body size in this context.

Together, these new data support a model in which Tra promotes increased body size in a protein-rich context by acting upstream of sun. To ensure that these findings are clearly communicated to the reader, we included these new data and a new summary figure to the revised manuscript (Figure 7).

and tra plays a role in the sun transcription.

We were also curious about the link between Tra and regulation of sun mRNA levels, as two transcription factors known to mediate Tra’s gene expression effects do not affect body size (doublesex [dsx] and fruitless [fru]; Rideout et al., 2015). In our revised manuscript, we identify spargel (srl), the Drosophila homolog of PGC-1a, as one link between Tra and regulation of sun mRNA levels.

A previous study showed that Srl regulates sun mRNA levels in response to dietary protein (Delanoue et al., 2016), which we confirmed by showing that female larvae heterozygous for srl¹ were unable to augment sun mRNA levels in a protein-rich context (Figure 5A). This suggests that normal Srl function was required for the nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA in females. Importantly, we confirmed that the srl¹/+ larvae show no obvious developmental defects (Figure 5B, C).

To determine whether Srl mediates Tra’s effects on sun mRNA levels in a protein-rich context, we monitored nutrient-dependent changes to sun mRNA levels in Tra-expressing males, and in Tra-expressing males carrying the srl¹ allele. While males with ectopic Tra expression normally upregulate sun mRNA levels in a protein-rich context (Figure 4F), heterozygous loss of Srl function in these Tra-expressing males blocked the nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA (Figure 5D). This suggests that Srl function mediates Tra’s effects on sun mRNA levels, identifying a new mechanism by which Tra affects gene expression.

Because Tra-expressing males carrying the srl¹ allele no longer increase IIS activity or body size in a protein-rich context (Figure 5E, F), in contrast to Tra-expressing males with normal Srl function (Figure 4E, G), the data in our revised manuscript suggests that the regulation of sun mRNA levels by Srl plays an important role in mediating Tra’s effects on phenotypic plasticity. To reflect the importance of this new data, we added these figures, a significant amount of new text, a new model figure (Figure 7), and a new section to the Discussion.

Is sun a direct transcriptional target of tra?

Much of our knowledge about how Tra regulates gene expression comes from studies on how Tra, a splicing regulator, controls the sex-specific splicing of pre-mRNA of transcription factors dsx and fru. Because Tra impacts body size independently of these two genes (Rideout et al., 2015), our discovery of transcriptional coactivator Srl as one link between Tra and regulation of sun mRNA levels reveals a new way in which splicing factor Tra impacts gene expression.

While we adjusted the text to reflect the fact that the precise biochemical interactions between Tra, Srl, and sun require further study, as Tra is a splicing factor and Srl is a transcriptional coactivator that partners with multiple transcription factors to influence transcript levels (Tiefenbock et al., 2010) (Discussion), we also added text to highlight how uncovering the Tra-Srl link advances our understanding of Tra-dependent changes to gene expression independently of dsx and fru (Discussion).

For example, there is a rapidly growing body of literature describing Tra-dependent but dsx- and fru-independent effects on lifespan, organ plasticity, and neural circuits (Rideout et al., 2015; Hudry et al., 2016; Regan et al., 2016; Castellanos et al., 2013; Garner et al., 2018); however, the molecular mechanisms underlying these dsx- and fru-independent effects remain unknown. Our findings will therefore help researchers studying sex differences in traits such as lifespan, organ plasticity, and neural circuits by providing new insight into the mechanisms underlying Tra-dependent but dsx- and fru-independent effects on gene expression.

2) Related to the above question, is sun the only target of tra? The authors investigated possible roles of humoral factors; however, downstream targets of tra may not be necessarily humoral factors.

We previously showed that tra’s only confirmed direct downstream targets dsx and fru do not affect body size (Rideout et al., 2015); however, given that Srl mediates the nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA levels downstream of Tra, we also looked at gene expression changes in other known Srl targets. Like sun, we found that other confirmed Srl targets were regulated in a sex-specific and nutrient-dependent manner (Figure 5—figure supplement 2A-D). Yet when we used RNAi to knock down levels of Srl targets other than sun, loss of two additional Srl target genes that are functionally similar to sun did not affect phenotypic plasticity (Figure 5—figure supplement 2E-H). Note: loss of fat body bellwether (blw; FBgn0011211) and cytochrome c oxidase subunit 5a (Cox5a; FBgn0019624) did not produce viable animals for our measurements.

While this data suggests that sun plays an important role among Srl targets in mediating sex-specific body size plasticity downstream of Tra, we adjusted the text in our revised manuscript to reflect the fact that we cannot rule out all possible Srl targets in regulating sex-specific or nutrient-dependent growth.

3) No proof for the genetic relationship between tra-sun and sun-dilp2 is shown. For example, would overexpression of sun in tra mutant females rescue the nutrient-dependent growth?

We include this important experiment in our revised manuscript, and confirm that the overexpression of fat body sun in a tra mutant female is able to fully rescue the smaller body size in these females when they are raised in a protein-rich diet (Figure 4—figure supplement 2A). Further, we show that loss of fat body sun in a Tra-expressing male blocks the increased phenotypic plasticity we normally observe in males with ectopic Tra expression (Figure 4H). Together, these results strengthen a model in which sun lies downstream of Tra in regulating nutrient-dependent changes to body size. To address the sun-Dilp2 relationship, in our revised manuscript we highlight the elegant and comprehensive work that was done in the Léopold lab to show that sun impacts body size via regulation of Dilp2 secretion to ensure that the reader is aware of this important body of work.

4) Is mthl in the IPCs involved in this pathway?

To address a role for mth in the insulin-producing cells (IPCs) in the brain in this pathway, we used dilp2-GAL4 to knock down mth levels using RNAi. Unlike all other control strains we examined in this study, the dilp2-GAL4>+ control strain did not show a sex difference in nutrient-dependent body size plasticity (sex:diet interaction, p = 0.9995). We therefore used two alternative approaches to investigate a potential role for mth function in phenotypic plasticity: RNAi-mediated knock down of mth in all neurons, and whole-body loss of mth. Neither pan-neuronal, nor global, loss of mth significantly affected phenotypic plasticity (Figure 3—figure supplement 5A-F). The apparent discrepancy with the previous study is most likely due to differences in lab diets, using different dilp2-GAL4 lines, and the fact that we are not reproducing the original experiment with IPC-specific mth knockdown. While we included these new results in the revised manuscript (Figure 3—figure supplement 5A-F), we added text accompanying these figures to ensure the reader is aware of the limitations of our data compared with the original findings in Delanoue et al., 2016.

5) To separate the body size difference and body size plasticity, it would be better to show the weight or volume changed (2Y minus 1Y) in different conditions for the plasticity, and absolute weight/volume numbers for growth.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In order to ensure consistency between our data on pupal volume/adult weight data and past papers on Sun (Delanoue et al., 2016), we chose to maintain our current data presentation style. This will ensure that the audience is easily able to compare our data with past literature on Sun, and more generally within the larval growth field.

6) It is interesting that InR/sun also controls egg production. However, without providing a detailed mechanism underlying this phenotype, this part makes the paper more complicated. Is tra also involved? Is this phenotype solely due to dilp2 and subsequent activation of InR in the ovary?

We were also very interested in the link between nutrition, IIS and egg production. To ensure we acknowledge the body of literature in this area, we added text and citations to ensure that the reader is aware of past studies showing that increased circulating levels of Dilp proteins and nutrition can enhance egg production by increasing ovariole number. Further, we suggest future studies that should be completed in order to gain detailed insight into the fertility phenotypes that arise from changes to InR, sun, and dilp2.

Reviewer #2:

This is an interesting study addressing the molecular basis of nutrient-dependent body size plasticity in Drosophila. The authors re-evaluate the sex-difference in nutritional plasticity in Drosophila and show that yeast (amino acids?) is the main component that drives plasticity in females, while males remain insensitive to increased yeast content (at least within the range of the experimental conditions used in the present study). They further imply insulin/IGF signaling (IIS) in this control, which is somehow expected. The novelty comes from the elucidation of the role of Stunted (Sun), a fat body factor controlling the level of circulating Drosophila insulin-like peptides (dilps), in the phenotypic plasticity observed in females. Whereas sun expression is increased in females raised on rich versus poor medium, this is not true in males. By knocking down sun in the fat body of larvae, they demonstrate the need for sun in this sex-specific regulation, and link it to the function of the sex-determination factor Transformer (Tra).

The data globally fits with the conclusions and the paper is rather convincing. It definitely brings a novel molecular twist to the interesting question of sex-specific nutritional plasticity. However, there are several issues with the experimental aspects that need to be corrected before the paper is ready.

We thank the reviewer for their careful reading and analysis of the paper. We address specific points and suggestions for improvement below.

1) Figure 2A,B: the markers for IIS show no variation in males fed 1Y or 2Y. However, this is not the case in the same experiments presented in Figure 4—figure supplement 2A, where Inr and 4E-BP go down in 2Y condition, as in females (see r4/+ and +>sun-RNAi controls). This casts doubts on the reproducibility of such analysis.

In our original manuscript, we did not apply statistical tests to detect potential sex:diet and genotype:diet interactions in our gene expression data. In our revised manuscript, we improved our statistical analysis by applying these more rigorous tests to all of our gene expression data. Further, we identified an established way of displaying and analyzing co-regulated genes (e.g., Blaschke et al., 2013; Hudry et al., 2019) so that we no longer need to divide our panels displaying mRNA levels of Foxo target genes between the main and supplemental figures.

These changes allowed us to make more accurate conclusions about the behavior of Foxo target genes in response to variables such as sex, diet, and genotype. Also, we arranged the data in a better way to highlight the female-biased decrease in Foxo target gene expression in a protein-rich diet. Additional measures to help the reader appreciate the sex difference in the magnitude of gene expression changes include displaying the % change in Foxo target gene expression for each genotype.

In our revised manuscript we show that levels of Foxo target genes were significantly lower in all control females reared in 2Y compared with females reared in 1Y (Figure 1E, Figure 2A, Figure 3E, Figure 4A, Figure 4—figure supplement 3A). Given that high levels of IIS activity repress Foxo target genes, this indicates higher IIS activity in 2Y, as we previously showed. In males, when we repeated several key experiments, we still observed some variation in IIS readouts: we found either no change in Foxo target gene expression (Figure 1G), or a small but significant decrease in Foxo target genes (Figure 2B, Figure 3F). This suggests that males normally have a small but significant nutrient-dependent increase in IIS activity. To acknowledge this fact, we changed all instances of “female-specific” to “female-biased” in our revised manuscript when we refer to IIS activity.

Despite these minor differences among male genotypes, however, the most important conclusion we reached in our revised manuscript was that the magnitude of any nutrient-dependent change to Foxo target genes in control males was always smaller than in genotype-matched females (sex:diet interactions in Supplementary file 1). This reproducible female-biased upregulation of IIS activity across all genotypes therefore supports our finding that a sex difference exists in the nutrient-dependent upregulation of IIS activity.

With respect to the r4>UAS-sun-RNAi experiment, we show that r4>+ and +>sun-RNAi males have a significant decrease in mRNA levels of Foxo target genes and r4>sun-RNAi males males do not; however, there was no significant genotype:diet interaction among r4>+, +>sun-RNAi, and r4>sun-RNAi males (p = 0.1068). This indicates that there was no effect of genotype on Foxo target gene expression in males (Figure 3F), in contrast to the significant genotype:diet interaction we observed in females (p < 0.0001) (Figure 3E). Importantly, the magnitude of the reduction in Foxo target gene expression in control males was smaller than in genotype-matched females (sex:diet interactions p = 0.0166 and 0.0119, respectively), but not different between r4>sun-RNAi males and females (p = 0.1121).

Overall, we obtained a more accurate picture of nutrient-dependent changes to IIS activity in each sex and genotype, across two diets, by applying more rigorous statistical tests to our analysis of Foxo target genes. Together, we believe these changes support our conclusion that there is a female-biased increase in IIS activity in response to dietary protein, and that this nutrient-dependent increase in IIS activity requires dilp2, sun, and tra function.

2) Figure 4—figure supplement 1C,D: statistical significance should compare +>sun-RNAi and r4>sun-RNAi, since they correspond to lower control values.

We thank the Reviewer for highlighting that our graphs do not clearly indicate that our statistical analyses make multiple comparisons between all three genotypes included in this, and other, experiments. We have adjusted all of the graphs in the manuscript to show the statistical comparisons between all the genotypes for the sake of clarity.

3) What is the significance of 4E-BP levels being increased in 2Y in r4>sun-RNAi conditions (both in females and males)? This would mean that IIS is generally reduced, which does not make sense. Therefore, what is the value of measuring 4E-BP as a marker for IIS?

We also wondered about why 4E-BP for some genotypes does not correspond with the behavior of other Foxo target genes. We therefore sought a way of analyzing the Foxo target genes together to gain a better picture of Foxo activity than we would obtain by drawing conclusions based on the behaviour of single genes. One established way to analyze co-regulated genes is to examine the behavior of the genes as a group (Blaschke et al., 2013; Hudry et al., 2019), and applying rigorous statistical tests to detect genotype:diet and sex:diet interactions.

Using this improved statistical analysis, we showed that in r4>+ and +>UAS-sun-RNAi females there was a significant decrease in Foxo target gene expression between 1Y and 2Y that was absent in r4>UAS-sun-RNAi females (Figure 3E). Given that there was a significant diet:genotype interaction (p < 0.0001), this suggests that the magnitude of change to Foxo target gene expression was different between r4>UAS-sun-RNAi females and r4>+ and +>UAS-sun-RNAi controls. In contrast, there was no significant diet:genotype interaction between r4>UAS-sun-RNAi males and control males (p = 0.1068), indicating that Foxo target gene expression was not different in r4>sun-RNAi males compared with r4>+ and +>UAS-sun-RNAi control males (Figure 3F).

Importantly, sex:diet interactions showed that the magnitude of the nutrient-dependent change to Foxo target genes was greater in females than males for the r4>+ and +>UAS-sun-RNAi genotype, but not the r4>UAS-sun-RNAi genotype (p = 0.0166, 0.0119, and 0.1121, respectively). Thus, our improved statistical analysis of gene expression data for this experiment supports our conclusion that the loss of fat body sun blocks the nutrient-dependent increase in IIS activity in females, but not in males.

4) Sun is secreted in the hemolymph and its circulating levels are controlled by TORC1 activity in FB cells (Delanoue et al., 2016). Therefore, an evaluation of circulating levels of Sun should be provided to better characterize female and male physiological responses to 1Y vs 2Y.

We were also curious about circulating Sun levels, and a potential role for TOR in males and females on both diets. We first measured hemolymph Sun levels in males and females raised on 1Y and 2Y. We were fortunate to receive enough antibody to make 0.5 ml of primary antibody solution to perform this Western blot. We found that hemolymph levels of Sun were approximately twice as high in males as in females (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A), suggesting that there is a sex difference in circulating Sun.

To determine whether fat body TOR may affect the sex difference in circulating Sun, we measured TOR activity in fat bodies isolated from males and females reared in 1Y and 2Y. We found that there were no sex differences in phospho-S6k (pS6k) levels, an established readout for TOR signaling, in either diet (Figure 5—figure supplement 1A-D). Similarly, we found no significant changes to pS6k levels between fat bodies isolated from control and tra mutant females (Figure 5—figure supplement 1F, G).

This suggests that TOR activity does not normally differ between males and females, or between control females and tra mutant females, indicating that TOR may not be the sole determinant of circulating Sun levels. Given that we show fat body sun overexpression increases body size in multiple nutritional contexts when larvae are analyzed according to sex (Figure 3—figure supplement 7A, B, Figure 3—figure supplement 8A), it will be interesting to test whether increased sun mRNA promotes circulating Sun levels. Anti-Sun antibody quantities are too limiting for us to do this experiment at present; however, we added text to highlight the importance of this experiment (subsection “A nutrient-dependent increase in stunted mRNA levels is required for enhanced IIS activity and a larger body size plasticity in females cultured in a protein-rich context”).

Indeed, the results presented in Figure 4—figure supplement 4AB suggest that dysregulation of sun at the transcriptional level does not alter nutritional response in females and males. Looking at this figure, it is questionable whether nutritional plasticity is different in males and females of the r4>sun genotype.

Given that our data suggests it is the ability to augment sun mRNA levels, rather than absolute sun mRNA levels, that forms the basis of phenotypic plasticity, we measured sun mRNA levels in 1Y and 2Y in male larvae with fat body sun overexpression. We found no nutrient-dependent change in sun expression in these males (Figure 3—figure supplement 8C). Thus, the likely reason that sun overexpression does not enhance phenotypic plasticity in males was that the nutrient-dependent increase in sun mRNA levels was still absent in this overexpression context. To more clearly communicate these key points to the readers we have added text to this effect in the revised manuscript (subsection “A nutrient-dependent increase in stunted mRNA levels is required for enhanced IIS activity and a larger body size plasticity in females cultured in a protein-rich context”), and included a graphical abstract summarizing our model (Figure 7).

5) Again, concerning Sun regulation, what is the link between Tra activiy and sun expression in response to Y content in females?

We thank the reviewer for the opportunity to identify the link between Tra and sun mRNA levels. We added a significant amount of data in the revised manuscript to indicate that spargel (srl), the Drosophila homolog of PGC-1a, represents one link between Tra and the diet-dependent regulation of sun mRNA levels.

A previous study showed Srl mediates the nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA levels in a mixed-sex population of larvae (Delanoue et al., 2016). In our revised manuscript, we confirmed Srl function is required for the nutrient-dependent increase in sun mRNA levels in females raised on 2Y: the nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA was blocked in females heterozygous for the strong hypomorphic srl¹ allele (Figure 5A).

Further, we show that heterozygous loss of srl blocks the nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA levels in Tra-expressing males (Figure 5D). Given that heterozygous loss of srl also blocks the nutrient-dependent upregulation of IIS activity (Figure 5E) and increased body size of Tra-expressing males raised in a protein-rich diet (Figure 5F), our data suggests that Srl represents one important link between Tra and nutrient-dependent changes to sun mRNA levels, IIS activity, and phenotypic plasticity. To ensure the reader is aware of this new data, we added several figures, text, and discussion (subsection “Transcriptional coactivator Spargel represents one link between Transformer and regulation of sun mRNA levels”) on this topic to the revised manuscript.

Can the authors relay the level of Sun in 1Y vs 2Y to a difference in TOR activity specifically in female FB cells?

TOR has been shown to play an important role in regulating Sun secretion, and we confirm in the revised version of our manuscript that there is a sex difference in circulating Sun (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A, B). To determine whether TOR plays a role in regulating Sun release, we measured fat body TOR activity by quantifying pS6k levels in males and females in 1Y and 2Y. We found that fat body pS6k levels did not differ between the sexes in 1Y or 2Y (Figure 5—figure supplement 1A-D). Similarly, we found no significant difference in pS6k levels between control and tra mutant females (Figure 5—figure supplement 1F, G).

Given that we detected no sex differences in fat body TOR activity, and that increased TOR does not alter sun mRNA levels (Figure 5—figure supplement 1E), our data supports a model in which the sex-specific and Tra-dependent regulation of sun occurs primarily through Srl rather than TOR. To clarify this model, we added data and text to the revised manuscript to ensure the reader understands our model of sex-specific body size plasticity (Figure 7; subsection “A nutrient-dependent increase in stunted mRNA levels is required for enhanced IIS activity and a larger body size plasticity in females cultured in a protein-rich context”). Further, we added text to discuss how this finding aligns with our previous finding that rapamycin feeding in larvae did not impact sexual size dimorphism (Rideout et al., 2015) (subsection “A nutrient-dependent increase in stunted mRNA levels is required for enhanced IIS activity and a larger body size plasticity in females cultured in a protein-rich context”).

Reviewer #3:

This very well written manuscript by Millington et al., uses the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster to understand how sex-specific differences in endocrine signaling influences nutrient-dependent body size plasticity. Through a series of well-designed experiments, the authors demonstrate that females, but not males, exhibit increase growth when raised on a diet with twice the nutrient diet of standard fly food. Through a series of logical experiments, the authors reveal that growth difference results for sex-specific regulation of the insulin signaling pathway – female, but not male, flies express increased levels of the humeral factor stunted, which is known to promote dilp2 secretion from the IPCs. The authors further demonstrate that the manner by which female flies regulated stunted expression is required for nutrient-dependent body size plasticity. Finally, the authors demonstrate that the sex determination gene transformer is required for female-specific expression of stunted on the high nutrient diet.

Overall, I found this a very nice story that works its way from a simple observation to a molecular mechanism. The story will be of broad interest and highlights the importance of studying sex-specific differences in animal growth and development. I have a few suggested revisions, but overall enjoyed reading the manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment of our manuscript. We address each suggestion for improvement below.

1) The authors used animals that are heterozygous for mutations in the gene spargel as a substitute for analyzing stunted mutants. While I understand the necessity of this experiment, spargel mutants have a wide range of metabolic defects that are independent of stunted and I'm concerned that this experiment requires a leap of faith. At a minimum, I'd like to see verification that heterozygous spargel mutants exhibit significant changes in stunted gene expression.

Reviewer 3 makes very good points about verifying the effects of Srl on sun mRNA levels, and ensuring no broad metabolic defects exist in srl larvae. In our revised manuscript, we show that the nutrient-dependent increase in sun mRNA levels was blocked in female srl¹/+ larvae raised a protein-rich diet (Figure 5A).

To determine whether heterozygous loss of Srl also impacts sun regulation in the context of Tra overexpression, we measured sun levels in Tra-expressing male larvae (da-GAL4>UAS-tra). Normally, these Tra-expressing males show nutrient-dependent upregulation of sun mRNA (Figure 4F); however, in our revised manuscript we show heterozygous loss of srl in these Tra-expressing males blocks their ability to augment sun mRNA in a protein-rich context (Figure 5D).

Importantly, the changes we observe are unlikely to be caused by generalized metabolic defects, as body size in srl¹/+ larvae was not reduced compared with a control strain in the 1Y diet (Figure 5B, C). Together, the new data we present suggests that the ability of Tra to promote phenotypic plasticity depends on the regulation of sun mRNA levels by Srl, as loss of this regulation abolishes the ability of Tra-expressing males to upregulate sun, IIS activity, and body size in a protein-rich context (Figure 5D-F). Indeed, loss of sun in Tra-expressing males and females blocks phenotypic plasticity (Figure 4H, Figure 4—figure supplement 3H). To ensure readers are aware of all these important points, we include text and new data on this topic in the revised manuscript (Results).

Author details

1. Jason W Millington

   Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4330-2431

2. George P Brownrigg

   Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Charlotte Chao

   Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Ziwei Sun

   Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Paige J Basner-Collins

   Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Lianna W Wat

   Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Bruno Hudry

   MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, and Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

   Present address

   Institut de Biologie Valrose, Centre de Biochimie, Faculte des Sciences, Universite Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France

   Contribution

   Resources

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Irene Miguel-Aliaga

   MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, and Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Resources

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Elizabeth J Rideout

   Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, Life Sciences Institute, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   elizabeth.rideout@ubc.ca

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0012-2828

• 2,865

  Page views

• 406

  Downloads

• 19

  Citations

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