1. Genetics and Genomics
  2. Neuroscience
Download icon

Investigation of Drosophila fruitless neurons that express Dpr/DIP cell adhesion molecules

  1. Savannah G Brovero
  2. Julia C Fortier
  3. Hongru Hu
  4. Pamela C Lovejoy
  5. Nicole R Newell
  6. Colleen M Palmateer
  7. Ruei-Ying Tzeng
  8. Pei-Tseng Lee
  9. Kai Zinn
  10. Michelle N Arbeitman  Is a corresponding author
  1. Florida State University, United States
  2. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  3. California Institute of Technology, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 513
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e63101 doi: 10.7554/eLife.63101

Abstract

Drosophila reproductive behaviors are directed by fruitless neurons. A reanalysis of genomic studies shows that genes encoding dpr and DIP Immunoglobulin superfamily (IgSF) members are expressed in fru P1 neurons. We find that each fru P1 and dpr/DIP (fru P1dpr/DIP) overlapping expression pattern is similar in both sexes, but there are dimorphisms in neuronal morphology and cell number. Behavioral studies of fru P1dpr/DIP perturbation genotypes indicates that the mushroom body functions together with the lateral protocerebral complex to direct courtship behavior. A single-cell RNA-seq analysis of fru P1 neurons shows that many DIPs have high expression in a small set of neurons, whereas the dprs are often expressed in a larger set of neurons at intermediate levels, with a myriad of dpr/DIP expression combinations. Functionally, we find that perturbations of sex hierarchy genes and of DIP-ε change the sex-specific morphologies of fru P1DIP-α neurons.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Savannah G Brovero

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Julia C Fortier

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Hongru Hu

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Pamela C Lovejoy

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nicole R Newell

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Colleen M Palmateer

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ruei-Ying Tzeng

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Pei-Tseng Lee

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Kai Zinn

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6706-5605
  10. Michelle N Arbeitman

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    For correspondence
    michelle.arbeitman@med.fsu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2437-4352

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 grant number R01GM073039)

  • Savannah G Brovero
  • Julia C Fortier
  • Hongru Hu
  • Pamela C Lovejoy
  • Nicole R Newell
  • Colleen M Palmateer
  • Ruei-Ying Tzeng
  • Michelle N Arbeitman

National Institutes of Health (R03 grant number R03NS090184)

  • Ruei-Ying Tzeng

National Institutes of Health (R01 grant number R01GM073039)

  • Michelle N Arbeitman

Florida State University (R01 grant number Biomedical Sciences)

  • Hongru Hu
  • Pamela C Lovejoy
  • Nicole R Newell
  • Colleen M Palmateer

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael B Eisen, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: September 17, 2020
  2. Accepted: February 22, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 22, 2021 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2021, Brovero et al.

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

Metrics

  • 513
    Page views
  • 88
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

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

Download links

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

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    William L Hamilton et al.
    Research Article

    COVID-19 poses a major challenge to care homes, as SARS-CoV-2 is readily transmitted and causes disproportionately severe disease in older people. Here, 1,167 residents from 337 care homes were identified from a dataset of 6,600 COVID-19 cases from the East of England. Older age and being a care home resident were associated with increased mortality. SARS-CoV-2 genomes were available for 700 residents from 292 care homes. By integrating genomic and temporal data, 409 viral clusters within the 292 homes were identified, indicating two different patterns - outbreaks among care home residents and independent introductions with limited onward transmission. Approximately 70% of residents in the genomic analysis were admitted to hospital during the study, providing extensive opportunities for transmission between care homes and hospitals. Limiting viral transmission within care homes should be a key target for infection control to reduce COVID-19 mortality in this population.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Supriya Srinivasan
    Insight

    Making choices about food affects the metabolism and lifespan of fruit flies.