Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 May 28;27(9):2527-2536.e4.
doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.04.104.

Evolution of Mechanisms that Control Mating in Drosophila Males

Affiliations

Evolution of Mechanisms that Control Mating in Drosophila Males

Osama M Ahmed et al. Cell Rep. .

Abstract

Genetically wired neural mechanisms inhibit mating between species because even naive animals rarely mate with other species. These mechanisms can evolve through changes in expression or function of key genes in sensory pathways or central circuits. Gr32a is a gustatory chemoreceptor that, in D. melanogaster, is essential to inhibit interspecies courtship and sense quinine. Similar to D. melanogaster, we find that D. simulans Gr32a is expressed in foreleg tarsi, sensorimotor appendages that inhibit interspecies courtship, and it is required to sense quinine. Nevertheless, Gr32a is not required to inhibit interspecies mating by D. simulans males. However, and similar to its function in D. melanogaster, Ppk25, a member of the Pickpocket family, promotes conspecific courtship in D. simulans. Together, we have identified distinct evolutionary mechanisms underlying chemosensory control of taste and courtship in closely related Drosophila species.

Keywords: Gr32a; Gr33a; Ppk25; chemosensation; courtship; evolution; mating; pheromones; reproduction; reproductive isolation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. D. simulans Male Foreleg Tarsi Inhibit Courtship of Other Species and Are Not Essential for Courtship of Conspecific Females
(A) We tested whether, similar to D. melanogaster males, foreleg tarsi also inhibited interspecies courtship by D. simulans males. (B) D. simulans males lacking foreleg tarsi court conspecific, D. melanogaster, and D. virilis females. (C) D. simulans males lacking foreleg tarsi are more likely to show intense courtship toward D. melanogaster and D. virilis females. (D) D. simulans males lacking foreleg tarsi show more courtship toward conspecific males. (E) D. simulans males lacking foreleg tarsi are more likely to show intense courtship toward conspecific males. Mean ± SEM. CI, fraction time spent courting target fly. Each circle denotes CI of one male. n = 14–41 per cohort. ***p < 0.001. See also Figure S1.
Figure 2
Figure 2. A Regulatory Region in the Gr32a Locus Is Functionally Conserved
(A) We sought to determine whether, similar to D. melanogaster, Gr32a was expressed in D. simulans foreleg tarsi. (B) Schematic of transgenic constructs using a DNA sequence 5´ of Gr32a start codon from D. simulans (orange) and D. melanogaster (blue) to drive GAL4 expression. Sequence identity in this region between the two species is noted by solid orange color. (C–F) Gr32asim-GAL4 (C and D) and Gr32amel-GAL4 (E and F) each drive comparable citrine expression in distal tarsal segments T4 and T5 in both D. simulans (C and E) and D. melanogaster (D and F) male forelegs. (G) Quantification of data shown in histological panels (C–F). Mean ± SEM. Each circle denotes the number of citrine+ cells per male foreleg tarsi per genotype. n = 11–18 per genotype. Scale bar, 50 µm. See also Table S1 and Figure S1.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gr32a Is Not Required to Inhibit Interspecies Courtship but Is Essential for Quinine Sensing in D. simulans
(A) We tested whether, similar to D. melanogaster males, Gr32a inhibits interspecies courtship by D. simulans males. (B and C) WT and Gr32a mutant D. simulans males court conspecific but not D. melanogaster or D. virilis females. (D and E) WT and Gr32a mutant D. simulans males show similar low levels of courtship toward conspecific males. (F) We tested whether, similar to D. melanogaster, Gr32a inhibits feeding on quinine-containing food in D. simulans. (G) Schematic of feeding assay for starved D. simulans given choice of colored food containing sucrose or sucrose and quinine. Flies with blue, red, purple, or no food dye colored abdomens were enumerated after exposure to food for 90 min. (H) Significant decrease in preference by Gr32a mutant D. simulans for food containing only sucrose. Mean ± SEM. In (B)–(E), each circle denotes CI of one male, and n = 11–34 per genotype. In (G) and (H), preference index = {(# flies that ate sucrose-only food + 0.5*(purple flies)}/(number of flies that ate). Each circle denotes the preference index for one experiment. For each experiment, 106 ± 6 D. simulans of each genotype were used. n = 11–15 experiments/genotype. ***p < 0.001. See Tables S1–S3 and Figures S2 and S3.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Ppk25 Promotes Conspecific Courtship by D. simulans Males
(A) We tested whether, similar to D. melanogaster, Ppk25 promotes conspecific courtship by D. simulans males. (B–D) Ppk25 mutant D. simulans males show decreased courtship index (C.I.) in dark (B) and bright illumination (D) and a reduction in high levels of C.I. in dark (C) but not bright illumination (E) toward conspecific females. (E) No difference between WT and Ppk25 mutant D. simulans males in percentage assays with high levels of courtship of conspecific females. (F) Summary of the roles of Gr32a, Gr33a, and Ppk25 in D. melanogaster and D. simulans. Mean ± SEM. Each circle denotes CI for one male. n = 12–24 per genotype. ***p < 0.001. See Tables S1 and S3 and Figure S4.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Allaire JJ, Cheng J, Xie Y, McPherson J, Chang W, Allen J, Wickham H, Atkins A, Hyndman R, and Arslan R (2017). rmarkdown: Dynamic Documents for R https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rmarkdown/index.html.
    1. Artimo P, Jonnalagedda M, Arnold K, Baratin D, Csardi G, de Castro E, Duvaud S, Flegel V, Fortier A, Gasteiger E, et al. (2012). ExPASy: SIB bioinformatics resource portal. Nucleic Acids Res 40, W597–W603. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baldwin MW, Toda Y, Nakagita T, O’Connell MJ, Klasing KC, Misaka T, Edwards SV, and Liberles SD (2014). Sensory biology. Evolution of sweet taste perception in hummingbirds by transformation of the ancestral umami receptor. Science 345, 929–933. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bastock M, and Manning A (1955). The courtship of Drosophila melanogaster. Behaviour 8, 85–111.
    1. Billeter J-C, Atallah J, Krupp JJ, Millar JG, and Levine JD (2009). Specialized cells tag sexual and species identity in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 461, 987–991. - PubMed

Publication types