DOCSLIB.ORG

Functional Analysis of a New Dominant-Negative Allele of Miranda During CNS Development in Drosophila

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Functional Analysis of a New Dominant-Negative Allele of Miranda During CNS Development in Drosophila Functional analysis of a new dominant-negative allele of miranda during CNS development in Drosophila Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf Vorgelegt von Chieko Takizawa aus Tokyo, Japan Düsseldorf, 2006 Gedruckt mit Genehmigung der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf Tag der mündlich Prüfung: 22. Mai 2006 Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. A. Wodarz Prof. Dr. E. Knust 1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Generation of cell diversity .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Development of the central nervous system in Drosophila ............................... 2 1.3 Asymmetric cell division of Drosophila neuroblasts......................................... 4 1.4 Proteins involved in the asymmetric cell division of neuroblasts....................... 5 1.4.1 Basally localized proteins .......................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Apically localized proteins......................................................................... 6 1.4.3 Other proteins involved in asymmetric cell division................................... 8 1.5 Control of daughter cell size asymmetry......................................................... 11 1.6 Asymmetric cell division in other systems: common features and differences. 11 1.6.1 Drosophila sensory organ precursor cells................................................. 11 1.6.2 C. elegans zygote..................................................................................... 12 1.7 Evolutionary conservation of the Par/aPKC complex...................................... 14 1.8 Miranda.......................................................................................................... 14 1.8.1 Function of Miranda ................................................................................ 16 1.8.2 Protein structure ...................................................................................... 17 1.8.3 miranda mutant alleles............................................................................. 17 1.9 Aim of my work............................................................................................. 18 2 Materials and methods.................................................................................. 19 2.1 Genetic screens .............................................................................................. 19 2.1.1 Maternal screen ....................................................................................... 19 2.1.2 Fly stocks ................................................................................................ 20 2.1.3 Generation of germline clones ................................................................. 21 2.1.4 Zygotic screen ......................................................................................... 22 2.2 Immunocytochemistry.................................................................................... 23 2.2.1 Embryo collection and fixation................................................................ 23 2.2.2 Antibody staining (immunofluorescence)................................................. 23 2.2.3 Antibody staining (enzyme-conjugated secondary antibody).................... 24 2.2.5 Antibodies ............................................................................................... 25 2.2.6 DNA label with YoYo-1.......................................................................... 26 2.2.7 Cuticle preparation .................................................................................. 26 2.3 Genetics ......................................................................................................... 26 2.3.1 Fly stocks ................................................................................................ 26 2.3.2 Complementation test .............................................................................. 28 2.3.3 Recombination......................................................................................... 28 2.4 Molecular biology.......................................................................................... 29 2.4.1 Sequencing of the miraE326 genomic DNA................................................ 29 2.4.1.1 Genomic DNA isolation...................................................................... 30 2.4.1.2 PCR (polymerase chain reaction) ........................................................ 31 2.4.2 Cloning of the jaguar cDNA.................................................................... 31 2.4.2.1 Cloning of PCR fragments into plasmids.............................................. 33 2.4.2.2 Transformation of electrocompetent cells............................................. 33 2.4.2.3 Isolation of plasmid DNA .................................................................... 34 2.4.3 Constructs................................................................................................ 34 2.5 Yeast two-hybrid assay .................................................................................. 36 2.5.1 Constructs................................................................................................ 36 2.5.2 Yeast transformation................................................................................ 38 2.5.3 β-galactosidase test.................................................................................. 39 2.6 Biochemistry.................................................................................................. 40 2.6.1 GST-fusion protein.................................................................................. 40 2.6.2 in vitro transcription and translation......................................................... 41 2.6.3 GST pull-down assay............................................................................... 42 2.6.4 SDS-PAGE and Western blot analysis ...................................................... 43 2.7 General laboratory equipment ....................................................................... 44 3 Results............................................................................................................ 45 3.1 Maternal screen.............................................................................................. 45 3.1.1 Strategy ................................................................................................... 45 3.1.2 Results of the maternal screen.................................................................. 47 3.2 Zygotic screen................................................................................................ 49 3.2.1 Strategy ................................................................................................... 49 3.2.2 Results of the zygotic screen.................................................................... 51 3.3 Identification of the mutation of E326 ............................................................ 52 3.3.1 Complementation test .............................................................................. 53 3.3.2 Sequencing of mirandaE326 genomic DNA................................................ 53 3.4 Mislocalization of the mutant Miranda protein in mirandaE326 mutant neuroblasts and epithelial cells.................................................................................... 57 3.5 Comparison with other miranda alleles .......................................................... 61 3.5.1 Mislocalization of the mutant Miranda protein in mirandaE326 allele......... 61 3.5.2 Mislocalization of Prospero in mirandaE326 allele ..................................... 61 3.6 Genetic interaction between mirandaE326 and prospero ................................... 65 3.7 Neuronal cell fate determination..................................................................... 66 3.7.1 Cell fate determination in single mutants for miranda or prospero........... 66 3.7.2 Cell fate determination in mirandaE326 and prospero transheterozygotes... 67 3.8 Interactions between Miranda and its binding partners ................................... 70 3.8.1 Yeast two-hybrid assay............................................................................ 70 3.8.1.1 Miranda and Inscuteable ..................................................................... 70 3.8.1.2 Miranda and Myosin VI ...................................................................... 73 3.8.2 GST pull-down assay............................................................................... 74 4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 76 4.1 Maternal screen.............................................................................................. 76 4.2 Zygotic screen................................................................................................ 76 4.3 E326 is allelic to mutations in miranda........................................................... 77 4.4 Effect of the mirandaE326 mutation on neural development.............................. 78 4.4.1 Subcellular localization of the cell fate determinant Prospero in neuroblasts 78 4.4.1.1 Association with Prospero and Staufen ............................................... 78 4.4.1.2 Dissociation from Prospero................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • And Abdominal-B in Drosqbhilu Melanogaster
    Copyright 0 1995 by the Genetics Society of America and Trans Interactions Between the iab Regulatory Regions and abdominal-A and Abdominal-B in Drosqbhilu melanogaster Jd Eileen Hendrickson and Shigeru Sakonju Department of Human Genetics, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 841 12 Manuscript received August 15, 1994 Accepted for publication November 8, 1994 ABSTRACT The infra-abdominal ( iab) elements in the bithorax complex of Drosophila melanogaster regulate the transcription of the homeotic genesabdominal-A ( abd-A) and Abdominal-B ( Abd-B) in cis. Here we describe two unusual aspects of regulation by the iab elements, revealed by an analysis of an unexpected comple- mentation between mutations in the Abd-B transcription unit and these regulatory regions. First,we find that iab-6 and iab7 can regulate Abd-B in trans. This iab trans regulation is insensitive to chromosomal rearrangements that disrupt transvection effects at the nearby Ubx locus. In addition, we show that a transposed Abd-B transcription unitand promoter on the Ychromosomecan be activatedby iabelements located on the third chromosome. These results suggest that the iab regions can regulate their target promoter located ata distant sitein the genomein a manner that is much less dependent on homologue pairing than other transvection effects.The iab regulatory regionsmay have a very strong affinity for the target promoter, allowing them to interactwith each other despite the inhibitory effectsof chromosomal rearrangements. Second, by generating abd-A mutations on rearrangement chromosomes that break in the iab-7 region, we show that these breaks induce theiab elements to switch their target promoter from Abd-B to abd-A.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Role of Cask in Neuronal Morphogenesis
    The Role of CASK in Neuronal Morphogenesis and Brain Size in Drosophila: A Genetic Model of Human Intellectual Disability with Microcephaly Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Tello Vega, Judith Arane Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction, presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 29/09/2021 20:08:46 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/630252 THE ROLE OF CASK IN NEURONAL MORPHOGENESIS AND BRAIN SIZE IN DROSOPHILA: A GENETIC MODEL OF HUMAN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY WITH MICROCEPHALY by Judith Arane Tello Vega Copyright © Judith Arane Tello Vega 2018 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the GRADUATE INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN NEUROSCIENCE In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2018 1 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Drosophila As a Genetic Model
    Drosophila as a Genetic Model Praveen V Prasad Asst Prof, Dept. of Botany Sree Narayana College Nattika PG 2nd Sem Drosophila as a model organism • Easy to breed • Tolerant to diverse conditions • short generation time (so several generations can be studied within a few weeks) • It has a high fecundity • Genome is sequenced • Large number genetic mutants are available • Free exchange of research material What is a model organism? • A model organism is a non-human species that is extensively studied to understand particular biological phenomenon, with the expectation that discoveries made in the organism model will provide insight into the workings of other organisms. What makes Model Organisms possible? Common ancestry of all organisms resulting conservation of major aspects of biology Transposon: Jumping genes DNA sequences that move from one location to another location in the genome Discovered by Barbara Mc Clintock, who was studying pigmentation of the kernel in maize Structure of Transposon Transposase gene 31 np inverted terminal repeat How does a transposon get inserted in the genome? Transposase binds to both ends of the transposon, which consist of inverted repeats It also binds to a sequence of DNA that makes up the target site. Some transposases require a specific sequence as their target site; others can insert the transposon anywhere in the genome. Transposons can mutate genes Hybrid Dysgenesis Hybrid dysgenesis refers to the high rate of mutation in germ line cells of Drosophila strains resulting from a cross of males with autonomous P elements (P Strain/P cytotype) and females that lack P elements (M Strain/M cytotype) Transposition only occurs in germ-line cells, because a splicing event needed to make transposase mRNA doesn’t occur in somatic cells Why don’t we see hybrid dysgenesis if we use females of P strain?? The eggs of P strain females contain high amounts of a repressor protein that prevents transcription of the transposase gene.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Analysis: the Terminology *
    Genetic Analysis: the Terminology M.Mullins, Woods Hole, 2013 M.Mullins, 2013 Genetic Terminology ATG UAA * * = mutation Recessive */* = mutant phenotype; ! */+ = wild-type phenotype! Dominant */+ = mutant phenotype ! Haploinsufficient-- */+, mutant phenotype; lof mutation! 1/2 the normal dose is not sufficient for normal development! Allelism - Complementation loss-of-function (lof)--! Amorphic/Null or Hypomorphic-- * causes reduction in activity of gene product Hypomorph: */* has weaker mutant phenotype than */null. ! */* has less activity of gene product than */null. ! Hypermorphic/ Gain of function-- Null---no functional gene product gof*/+, often opposite phenotype to lof*/lof*. Can be ! overexpression, overactivity, or unregulated activity ! of gene product.! How define a Null allele? -- */Deletion = */* ! Beware of stop codons! ! 1 Double heterozygote-- An individual that is heterozygous for two different mutations in two DIFFERENT genes bmp2btc300a/+; smad5tc227a/+ Transheterozygote-- An individual that is heterozygous for two different mutations in the SAME gene bmp2btc300a/ bmp2btdc24 Genetic Interaction-- One example: a mutant phenotype observed in double heterozygous embryos, which is not observed in either single heterozygote bmp2btc300a /+ X smad5ty40a /+ bmp2btc300a /+ , smad5ty40a /+, bmp2btc300a /+; smad5ty40a /+ WT WT Phenotype (weaker than either -/- phenotype) What does it mean? What does it mean if the double heterozygotes do not show a phenotype? Double mutant of bmp2b; smad5: Linear pathway v parallel pathway What
    [Show full text]
  • Inheritance of Deleterious Mutations at Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 in an International Sample of 32,295 Women Timothy R
    Rebbeck et al. Breast Cancer Research (2016) 18:112 DOI 10.1186/s13058-016-0768-3 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Inheritance of deleterious mutations at both BRCA1 and BRCA2 in an international sample of 32,295 women Timothy R. Rebbeck1*, Tara M. Friebel1, Nandita Mitra2, Fei Wan3, Stephanie Chen4, Irene L. Andrulis7,8, Paraskevi Apostolou9, Norbert Arnold10, Banu K. Arun11, Daniel Barrowdale5, Javier Benitez12,13,14, Raanan Berger15, Pascaline Berthet16, Ake Borg17, Saundra S. Buys18, Trinidad Caldes19, Jonathan Carter20, Jocelyne Chiquette21, Kathleen B. M. Claes22, Fergus J. Couch23, Cezary Cybulski24, Mary B. Daly25, Miguel de la Hoya19, Orland Diez26, Susan M. Domchek27, Katherine L. Nathanson27, Katarzyna Durda24, Steve Ellis28, EMBRACE28, D. Gareth Evans29, Lenka Foretova30, Eitan Friedman31,32, Debra Frost28, Patricia A. Ganz33, Judy Garber1, Gord Glendon34, Andrew K. Godwin35,36, Mark H. Greene37, Jacek Gronwald24, Eric Hahnen38, Emily Hallberg39, Ute Hamann40, Thomas V. O. Hansen41, HEBON42, Evgeny N. Imyanitov43, Claudine Isaacs44, Anna Jakubowska24, Ramunas Janavicius45,46, Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek24, Esther M. John47, Beth Y. Karlan48, Bella Kaufman15, KConFab investigators49, Ava Kwong50,51, Yael Laitman31,32, Christine Lasset52, Conxi Lazaro53, Jenny Lester48, Niklas Loman54, Jan Lubinski24, Siranoush Manoukian55, Gillian Mitchell56,57, Marco Montagna58, Susan L. Neuhausen59, Heli Nevanlinna60, Dieter Niederacher61, Robert L. Nussbaum62, Kenneth Offit63, Edith Olah64, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade65, Sue Kyung Park66, Marion Piedmonte67, Paolo Radice68, Christine Rappaport-Fuerhauser69, Matti A. Rookus70, Caroline Seynaeve71, Jacques Simard72, Christian F. Singer73, Penny Soucy72, Melissa Southey74, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet75, Grzegorz Sukiennicki24, Csilla I. Szabo76, Mariella Tancredi77, Manuel R. Teixeira78, Soo-Hwang Teo79,80, Mary Beth Terry81, Mads Thomassen82, Laima Tihomirova83, Marc Tischkowitz84, Amanda Ewart Toland85, Aleksandra Toloczko-Grabarek24, Nadine Tung86, Elizabeth J.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmable RNA Targeting Using Casrx in Flies
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.03.023606; this version posted April 4, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Programmable RNA Targeting using CasRx in Flies List of Authors and Affiliations: Anna Buchman1,*, Dan J. Brogan1,*, Ruichen Sun1,*, Ting Yang1, Patrick Hsu2,3 and Omar S. Akbari1,4† 1 Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 2 Laboratory of Molecular and Cell Biology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 10010 N. Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA 3 Helmsley Center for Genomic Medicine, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 10010 N. Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA 4 Tata Institute for Genetics and Society, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 †To whom correspondence should be addressed: Omar S. Akbari Division of Biological Sciences, Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA Ph: 858-246-0640; Email: [email protected] * equal contributions Keywords RNA, CRISPR, CasRx, ribonuclease, flies Abstract CRISPR-Cas genome editing technologies have revolutionized the fields of functional genetics and genome engineering, but with the recent discovery and optimization of RNA-targeting Cas ribonucleases, we may soon see a similar revolution in the study of RNA function and transcriptome engineering. However, to date, successful proof-of-principle for Cas ribonuclease RNA targeting in eukaryotic systems has been limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem Sets Fall 1993
    Problem Sets Fall 1993 7.03 Problem Set 1 due in class Friday, September 24 All four problems will be graded. Some parts of these problems are quite difficult, if you get stuck try doing the other problems and come back to the hard parts later. 1. Consider the following experiments designed to identify genes in yeast that are required for the synthesis of the amino acid arginine. Yeast mutants that are defective in arginine synthesis and are therefore called Arg- can be identified because they can not grow on medium that is not supplemented with arginine. Ten Arg- strains are isolated by screening mutagenized yeast colonies for those colonies that grow on minimal medium with arginine but will not grow on minimal medium without arginine. Five of the mutants are isolated in a haploid yeast strain of mating type cz (strains 1 - 5) and five of the mutants are isolated in a haploid strain of mating type a (strains 6 - 10). Remember that an a strain will only mate with an o_strain and that a will not mate with a and (z will not mate with o_. Pairwise matings are performed between different strains as indicated in the table below. When the resulting diploid can not grow on minimal medium without arginine a (-) is indicated at the intersection of the two parental strains. When the resulting diploid can grow without arginine a (+) is indicated. strains of mating type o_ 1 2 3 4 5 wildtype 6 + + -- + -- + 7 + + + - -- + strains of matingtypea 8 + + -- + -- + 9 + + + - -- + 10 + + -- + -- + wildtype + + + + - + (a) Explain the unusual behavior of strain 5.
    [Show full text]
  • A Multimeric Complex and the Nuclear Targeting of the Drosophila Rel Protein Dorsal
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 14524–14529, December 1997 Developmental Biology A multimeric complex and the nuclear targeting of the Drosophila Rel protein Dorsal JUN YANG AND RUTH STEWARD* Waksman Institute and Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855 Communicated by Eric F. Wieschaus, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, October 8, 1997 (received for review August 28, 1997) ABSTRACT The intracellular part of the Rel signal trans- stage, the Dorsal–Cactus complex is disrupted in response to duction pathway in Drosophila is encoded by Toll, tube, pelle, the activated spatial signal transmitted through Toll, resulting dorsal, and cactus, and it functions to form the dorsal–ventral in the graded nuclear import of Dorsal. In the nucleus, Dorsal axis in the Drosophila embryo. Upon activation of the trans- regulates the asymmetric expression of a set of zygotic genes membrane receptor Toll, Dorsal dissociates from its cytoplas- (17, 18). Cactus and other IkB family members associate with mic inhibitor Cactus and enters the nucleus. Tube and Pelle Rel proteins via the ankyrin repeats (12, 16, 19, 20). Immu- are required to relay the signal from Toll to the Dorsal–Cactus noprecipitation and cross-linking experiments revealed that complex. In a yeast two-hybrid assay, we found that both Tube two molecules of Dorsal are complexed with one molecule of and Pelle interact with Dorsal. We confirmed these interac- Cactus (21, 22). tions in an in vitro binding assay. Tube interacts with Dorsal The transduction of the signal from the Toll receptor to the via its C-terminal domain, whereas full-length Pelle is re- Dorsal–Cactus complex requires at least two other cytoplasmic quired for Dorsal binding.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constrained Architecture of Mammalian Hox Gene Clusters
    The constrained architecture of mammalian Hox gene clusters Fabrice Darbellaya, Célia Bochatona, Lucille Lopez-Delislea, Bénédicte Mascrezb, Patrick Tschoppb,1, Saskia Delprettia,2, Jozsef Zakanyb, and Denis Duboulea,b,c,3 aSchool of Life Sciences, Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; bDepartment of Genetics and Evolution, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland; and cCollège de France, 75005, Paris, France Contributed by Denis Duboule, May 8, 2019 (sent for review March 18, 2019; reviewed by Darío G. Lupiáñez and René Rezsohazy) In many animal species with a bilateral symmetry, Hox genes are from their invertebrate counterparts by a higher order in their clustered either at one or at several genomic loci. This organization structural organization. For instance, vertebrate Hox clusters are has a functional relevance, as the transcriptional control applied to barely over 100 kb in size (with the exception of axolotl; see Dis- each gene depends upon its relative position within the gene clus- cussion), whereas cephalochordate or echinoderm clusters are ter. It was previously noted that vertebrate Hox clusters display a around 500 kb large, similar to all characterized single invertebrate much higher level of genomic organization than their invertebrate clusters (SI Appendix,Fig.S1A). Therefore, the current situation is counterparts. The former are always more compact than the latter, that not a single animal outside gnathostome (jawed) vertebrates they are generally devoid of repeats and of interspersed genes, has been reported to carry a complete Hox gene cluster of a size and all genes are transcribed by the same DNA strand, suggesting and compaction level close to that of vertebrates (SI Appendix, that particular factors constrained these clusters toward a tighter Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Mutant Alleles of Myospheroid, the Gene Encoding the @ Subunit of the Drosophila PS Integrins
    Copyright 0 1992 by the Genetics Society of America Characterization of Mutant Alleles of myospheroid, the Gene Encoding the @ Subunit of the Drosophila PS Integrins Thomas A. Bunch, Richard Salatino,Marc C. Engelsgjerd, Leona Mukai, Robert F. West and Danny L. Brower Department of Molecular and CellularBiology and Department of Biochemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 Manuscript received March 17, 1992 Accepted for publicationJune 24, 1992 ABSTRACT This paper presents the characterization of nine alleles of myospheroid, which encodes the Bps subunit of the DrosophilaPS integrins. On Southern blots, the my?B87, and my?Ro4 genes yield restriction digest patterns similar to that seen for wild-type chromosomes, howevermys' the and my#c43 genes contain detectable deletions. mys', my?'" and my?"43 make little or no stable protein product, andgenetically behave as stronglethal alleles. For the mutation,protein product is seen on immunoblots and a reduced amount of (Bps protein is seen at muscle attachment sites of embryos; this mutant protein retains some wild-type function,as revealed by complementation tests with weak alleles. Protein is also seen on immunoblots from my?Ro4 embryos, and this allele behaves as an antimorph, being more deleterious in some crosses than the complete deficiency for the locus. mysf" and mys"J4' are typically lethal in various combinations with other alleles at high temperatures only,but even at highphysiological temperatures,neither appears to eliminate gene function completely. The complementation behaviors of mys'"' and mys"' are quite unusual and suggest that these mutations involve regulatory phenomena. For mystS3,the data are mosteasily explained by postulating transvection effectsat the locus.
    [Show full text]
  • Tissue Specific Effects of Ommochrome Pathway Mutations in Drosophila Melanogaster
    Genet. Res., Camb. (1991), 57, pp. 257-266 With 3 text-figures Printed in Great Britain 257 Tissue specific effects of ommochrome pathway mutations in Drosophila melanogaster RICK TEARLE Department of Genetics and Human Variation, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia (Received 16 August 1990 and in revised form 26 October 1990) Summary The tissue-specific effects of 17 mutations affecting the synthesis of brown eye pigment (xanthommatin) have been investigated by combining them with chocolate and red cells, two mutations causing ectopic pigmentation of the Malpighian tubules and larval fat body (which normally only synthesize pigment precursors). The majority of mutations block the pigmentation of four organs: the normally pigmented eyes and ocelli, and ectopically pigmented tubules and fat body. They represent genes that would appear to be required for the normal operation of the pathway per se and are likely to encode structural proteins. Mutations at 5 loci affect pigmentation of a subset of organs: cd and po affect only the eyes and ocelli; kar affects the eyes, ocelli and fat body; car causes excretion of pigment from tubules; and z affects pigmentation of the eyes alone. Of these loci, only z has been shown to encode a regulatory protein and the role of the remaining four gene products is not clear. Two mutations affecting the red eye pigments (drosopterins), bw and mal, do not substantially perturb brown pigment synthesis in any of the four organs. 1978) the conversion of tryptophan to kynurenine 1. Introduction is usually treated as a single step.] In addition to v The compound eye of Drosophila melanogaster con- and en, lesions in about 25 other genes have a major tains two types of light-screening pigments, the brown effect on the pathway, as judged by altered eye or ommochrome (xanthommatin) and a series of red ocellus pigmentation (Lindsley & Grell, 1968; pteridines (drosopterins).
    [Show full text]
  • Tissue-Specific Interaction Between Ret and Ednrb
    Phenotype variation in two-locus mouse models of Hirschsprung disease: Tissue-specific interaction between Ret and Ednrb Andrew S. McCallion*, Erine Stames*, Ronald A. Conlon†, and Aravinda Chakravarti*‡ *McKusick–Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205; and †Department of Genetics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-4955 Communicated by Leland H. Hartwell, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, December 11, 2002 (received for review August 7, 2002) Clinical expression of Hirschsprung disease (HSCR) requires the inter- HSCR-like phenotypes have been reported in a wide array of action of multiple susceptibility genes. Molecular genetic analyses higher organisms, including horse, pig, rat, and mouse (16–23). have revealed that interactions between mutations in the genes Mouse models, in particular, have been crucial to the identifi- encoding the RET receptor tyrosine kinase and the endothelin recep- cation and functional analysis of genes underlying HSCR. Ho- tor type B (EDNRB) are central to the genesis of HSCR. We have mozygous Ret kinase-null mice demonstrate complete enteric established two locus noncomplementation assays in mice, using aganglionosis, defects in sympathetic innervation, and bilateral allelic series at Ednrb in the context of Ret kinase-null heterozygotes, renal agenesis (18). In contrast, an absence of EDNRB signaling to understand the clinical presentation, incomplete penetrance, vari- in the embryo results in severe epidermal hypopigmentation and ation in length of aganglionic segment, and sex bias observed in bilateral absence of the retinal choroid layer but is also accom- human HSCR patients. Titration of Ednrb in the presence of half the panied by intestinal aganglionosis (distal gut only) (16, 17).
    [Show full text]