DOCSLIB.ORG

Kosuda, K. Viability of Drosophila

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kosuda, K. Viability of Drosophila Dros. Inf. Serv. 96 (2013) Research Notes 79 Grygiel 2009, Bioelectromagnetics 30: 687-689; Graham, J.H., D. Fletcher, J. Tigue, and M. McDonald 2000, Bioelectromagnetics 21: 465-472; Koval, T.M., R.W. Hart, W.C. Myser, and W.F. Hink 1977, Genetics 87: 513-518; Koval, T.M., R.W. Hart, W.C. Myser, and W.F. Hink 1979, International Journal of Radiation Biology & Related Studies in Physics, Chemistry & Medicine 35: 183-188; Koval, T.M., and E.R. Kazmar 1988, Radiation Research 113: 268-277; Mathie, A., L.E. Kennard, and E.L. Veale 2003, Radiation Protection Dosimetry 106: 311-316; Mirabolghasemi, G., and M. Azarnia 2002, Bioelectromagnetics 23: 416-420; Prasad, K.N., 1995, Handbook of Radiobiology, 2nd ed., CRC Press; Ramírez, E., J.L. Monteagudo, M. García-Gracia, and J.M. Delgado 1983, Bioelectromagnetics 4: 315-326. Check-list of drosophilid species so far described and recorded from Uttarakhand state, India. Sati, Pradeep Chandra1, Rajendra Singh Fartyal*1, Manisha Sarswat1, Saurabh Dewan1, Mukul Kandpal2, Kanita1, Manoj Kumar Patel1, and Sushmika Pradhan3,4. 1UGC-SAP Department of Zoology & Biotechnology, HNB Garhwal University, Chauras Campus, Srinagar Garhwal, UK, India, 2Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Kumaun University, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India, 3P.G. Department of Zoology, Darjeeling Government College, Darjeeling, West Bengal, 4Genetics Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Calcutta, West Bengal, India; *author for correspondence Email: [email protected] / [email protected] Systematic position: PHYLUM: ARTHROPODA CLASS: INSECTA SUBCLASS: PTERYGOTA DIVISION: ENDOPTERYGOTA ORDER: DIPTERA SUBORDER: BRACHYCERA SUPER FAMILY: EPHYDROIDEA FAMILY: DROSOPHILIDAE Subfamily Steganinae 1. Genus Gitona Meigen 1. Gitona distigma Meigen, 1830 2. Genus Phortica Schiner Subgenus Phortica 2. Phortica (Phortica) bandes (Singh and Negi, 1992) 3. Phortica (Phortica) biprotrusa (Chen and Toda, 1998) 4. Phortica (Phortica) pseudotau (Toda and Peng, 1990) 3. Genus Leucophenga Mik 5. Leucophenga albiceps (de Meijere, 1914) 80 Research Notes Dros. Inf. Serv. 96 (2013) 6. Leucophenga angulata Singh, Dash and Fartyal, 2000 7. Leucophenga angusta Okada, 1956 8. Leucophenga argentata de Meijere 1914 9. Leucophenga bellula (Bergroth, 1894) 10. Leucophenga champawatensis Fartyal and Singh in Fartyal et al., 2005 11. Leucophenga chaubattiaensis Fartyal and Toda in Fartyal et al., 2005 12. Leucophenga clubiata Singh, Dash and Fartyal, 2000 13. Leucophenga confluens Duda, 1923 new record 14. Leucophenga kumaonensis Fartyal and Singh in Fartyal et al., 2005 15. Leucophenga nainae Fartyal and Singh in Fartyal et al., 2005 16. Leucophenga neoangusta Godbole and Vaidya in Vaidya and Godbole, 1976 17. Leucophenga neointerrupta Fartyal and Toda in Fartyal et al., 2005 18. Leucophenga neolacteusa Singh and Bhatt, 1988 19. Leucophenga okhalkandensis Singh, Dash and Fartyal, 2000 20. Leucophenga ornata Wheeler, 1959 21. Leucophenga quadripunctata (de Meijere, 1908) 22. Leucophenga regina Mollach, 1935 23. Leucophenga subpollinosa (de Meijere, 1914) 24. Leucophenga trispina Upadhyay and Singh, 2007 4. Genus Paraleucophenga Hendel 25. Paraleucophenga neojavanaii Singh and Negi, 1992 26. Paraleucophenga todai Fartyal and Singh, 2004 5. Genus Stegana Meigen Subgenus Steganina Wheeler 27. Stegana (Steganina) nainitalensis Singh and Fartyal, 2002 Subfamily Drosophilinae 6. Genus Dettopsomyia Lamb 28. Dettopsomyia nigrovittata (Malloch, 1924) 7. Genus Drosophila Fallén i. Subgenus Dorsilopha Sturtevant 29. Drosophila (Dorsilopha) busckii Coquillett, 1901 ii. Subgenus Drosophila 30. Drosophila (Drosophila) analspina Singh and Negi, 1995 31. Drosophila (Drosophila) bageshwarensis Singh, Dash and Fartyal, 2004 32. Drosophila (Drosophila) bishtii Singh and Negi, 1995 Dros. Inf. Serv. 96 (2013) Research Notes 81 33. Drosophila (Drosophila) bizonata Kikkawa and Peng, 1938 34. Drosophila (Drosophila) dwarahatensis Upadhayay and Singh, 2006 35. Drosophila (Drosophila) hexaspina Singh, Dash and Fartyal, 2004 36. Drosophila (Drosophila) immigrans Sturtevant, 1921 37. Drosophila (Drosophila) khansuensis Singh, Dash and Fartyal, 2004 38. Drosophila (Drosophila) kulouriensis Fartyal and Singh in Brake and Bächli, 2008 39. Drosophila (Drosophila) nainitalensis Singh and Bhatt, 1988 40. Drosophila (Drosophila) nasuta Lamb, 1914 41. Drosophila (Drosophila) paharpaniensis Singh, Dash and Fartyal, 2004 42. Drosophila (Drosophila) painii Singh and Negi, 1995 43. Drosophila (Drosophila) paraimmigrans Gai and Krishnamurthy, 1986 44. Drosophila (Drosophila) paralongifera Gupta and Singh, 1981 45. Drosophila (Drosophila) paramarginata Singh, Dash and Fartyal, 2004 46. Drosophila (Drosophila) paunii Singh and Negi, 1989 47. Drosophila (Drosophila) sattalensis Fartyal and Singh in Brake and Bachli, 2008 48. Drosophila (Drosophila) sikkimensis Gupta and Gupta, 1991 49. Drosophila (Drosophila) sulfurigaster (Duda, 1923) 50. Drosophila (Drosophila) surangensis Singh, Dash and Fartyal, 2004 51. Drosophila (Drosophila) tetradentata Singh & Gupta 1980 52. Drosophila (Drosophila) trisetosa Okada, 1966 53. Drosophila (Drosophila) trizonata Okada, 1966 iii. Subgenus Siphlodora Patterson and Mainland 54. Drosophila (Siphlodora) hydei Sturtevant, 1921 55. Drosophila (Siphlodora) lacertosa Okada, 1956 56. Drosophila (Siphlodora) repleta Wollaston, 1858 iv. Subgenus Sophophora Sturtevant 57. Drosophila (Sophophora) bifasciata Pomini, 1940 58. Drosophila (Sophophora) gangotrii Muniyappa and Reddy, 1981 59. Drosophila (Sophophora) hubeiensis Sperlich and Watabe in Watabe & Sperlich, 1997 60. Drosophila (Sophophora) jambulina Parshad and Paika, 1964 61. Drosophila (Sophophora) kikkawai Burla, 1954 62. Drosophila (Sophophora) malerkotliana Parshad and Paika, 1964 63. Drosophila (Sophophora) melanogaster Meigen, 1830 64. Drosophila (Sophophora) neobaimai Singh and Dash, 1998 65. Drosophila (Sophophora) neokhaoyana Singh and Dash, 1998 66. Drosophila (Sophophora) nepalensis Okada, 1955 67. Drosophila (Sophophora) pulchrella Tan, Hsu and Sheng, 1949 68. Drosophila (Sophophora) punjabiensis Parshad and Paika, 1964 69. Drosophila (Sophophora) saraswati Singh and Dash, 1998 70. Drosophila (Sophophora) sargakhetensis Joshi, Fartyal and Singh, 2005 71. Drosophila (Sophophora) suzukii indica Parshad and Paika, 1964 72. Drosophila (Sophophora) takahashii Sturtevant, 1927 73. Drosophila (Sophophora) trapezifrons Okada, 1966 82 Research Notes Dros. Inf. Serv. 96 (2013) v. Incertae sedis 74. Drosophila mukteshwarensis Joshi, Fartyal and Singh, 2005 75. Drosophila notostriata Okada, 1966 76. Drosophila repletoides Hsu, 1943 8. Genus Hirtodrosophila Duda 77. Hirtodrosophila hexaspina Fartyal and Singh, 2002 78. Hirtodrosophila quadrivittata (Okada, 1956) 79. Hirtodrosophila seminigra (Duda, 1926) new record 80. Hirtodrosophila sexvittata (Okada, 1956) new record 9. Genus Liodrosophila Duda 81. Liodrosophila nitida Duda, 1922 new record 10. Genus Lordiphosa Basden 82. Lordiphosa antillaria (Okada, 1984) 83. Lordiphosa tripartita (Okada, 1966) 11. Genus Microdrosophila Malloch Subgenus Microdrosophila 84. Microdrosophila (Microdrosophila) bamanpuriensis Upadhyay and Singh, 2007 12. Genus Mulgravea Bock 85. Mulgravea parasiatica (Takada and Momma, 1975) 13. Genus Mycodrosophila Oldenberg Subgenus Mycodrosophila 86. Mycodrosophila (Mycodrosophila) gratiosa (de Meijere, 1911) new record 14. Genus Scaptodrosophila Duda 87. Scaptodrosophila chandraprabhiana (Gupta and Ray chaudhuri, 1970) 88. Scaptodrosophila coracina (Kikkawa and Peng, 1938) 89. Scaptodrosophila hirsuata Singh and Dash, 1998 15. Genus Scaptomyza Hardy i. Subgenus Parascaptomyza Duda Dros. Inf. Serv. 96 (2013) Research Notes 83 90. Scaptomyza (Parascaptomyza) elmoi Takada, 1970 91. Scaptomyza (Parascaptomyza) himalayana Takada, 1970 ii. Subgenus Scaptomyza 92. Scaptomyza (Scaptomyza) tistai Kumar and Gupta, 1992 16. Genus Zaprionus Coquillett i. Subgenus Anaprionus Okada 93. Zaprionus (Anaprionus) grandis (Kikkawa and Peng, 1938) ii. Subgenus Zaprionus 94. Zaprionus (Zaprionus) indianus Gupta, 1970 Acknowledgments: This work is financially supported by University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India as Major Research Project to R.S. Fartyal, Ref. No. UGC Project F. No. 37- 198/2009 (SR). We especially thank Emeritus Prof. M.J. Toda of Hokkaido University Museum, Sapporo, Japan for giving us valuable expert comments on an early draft of this check list. The authors also thank the Director ZSI and Dr. Dhriti Banerjee in charge Diptera section Zoological Society Kolkata for their cooperation in unknown sample keeping her ZSI Museum and also acknowledge National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), Chennai, India. Guide to Authors Drosophila Information Service prints short research, technique, and teaching articles, descriptions of new mutations, and other material of general interest to Drosophila researchers. The current publication schedule for regular issues is annually, with the official publication date being December. The annual issue will include material submitted during the calendar year. To help us meet this target date, we request that submissions be sent by 15 December, but articles are accepted at any time. A receipt deadline of 31 December is a firm deadline, due to printer submission schedules. Electronic submissions are encouraged, and may be required for lengthy or complex articles. Manuscripts, orders, and inquiries concerning the regular annual DIS issue should be sent to James Thompson, Department of Zoology,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DROSOPHILA INFORMATION SERVICE March 1981
    DROSOPHILA INFORMATION SERVICE 56 March 1981 Material contributed by DROSOPHILA WORKERS and arranged by P. W. HEDRICK with bibliography edited by I. H. HERSKOWITZ Material presented here should not be used in publications without the consent of the author. Prepared at the DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Lawrence, Kansas 66045 - USA DROSOPHILA INFORMATION SERVICE Number 56 March 1981 Prepared at the Division of Biological Sciences University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas - USA For information regarding submission of manuscripts or other contributions to Drosophila Information Service, contact P. W. Hedrick, Editor, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045 - USA. March 1981 DROSOPHILA INFORMATION SERVICE 56 DIS 56 - I Table of Contents ON THE ORIGIN OF THE DROSOPHILA CONFERENCES L. Sandier ............... 56: vi 1981 DROSOPHILA RESEARCH CONFERENCE .......................... 56: 1 1980 DROSOPHILA RESEARCH CONFERENCE REPORT ...................... 56: 1 ERRATA ........................................ 56: 3 ANNOUNCEMENTS ..................................... 56: 4 HISTORY OF THE HAWAIIAN DROSOPHILA PROJECT. H.T. Spieth ............... 56: 6 RESEARCH NOTES BAND, H.T. Chyniomyza amoena - not a pest . 56: 15 BAND, H.T. Ability of Chymomyza amoena preadults to survive -2 C with no preconditioning . 56: 15 BAND, H.T. Duplication of the delay in emergence by Chymomyza amoena larvae after subzero treatment . 56: 16 BATTERBAM, P. and G.K. CHAMBERS. The molecular weight of a novel phenol oxidase in D. melanogaster . 56: 18 BECK, A.K., R.R. RACINE and F.E. WURGLER. Primary nondisjunction frequencies in seven chromosome substitution stocks of D. melanogaster . 56: 17 BECKENBACH, A.T. Map position of the esterase-5 locus of D. pseudoobscura: a usable marker for "sex-ratio ..
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera: Drosophilidae) in North-Eastern Argentina Revista De La Sociedad Entomológica Argentina, Vol
    Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina ISSN: 0373-5680 [email protected] Sociedad Entomológica Argentina Argentina LAVAGNINO, Nicolás J.; CARREIRA, Valeria P.; MENSCH, Julián; HASSON, Esteban; FANARA, Juan J. Geographic distribution and hosts of Zaprionus indianus (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in North-Eastern Argentina Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina, vol. 67, núm. 1-2, 2008, pp. 189-192 Sociedad Entomológica Argentina Buenos Aires, Argentina Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=322028482021 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto ISSN 0373-5680 Rev. Soc. Entomol. Argent. 67 (1-2): 189-192, 2008 189 NOTA CIENTÍFICA Geographic distribution and hosts of Zaprionus indianus (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in North-Eastern Argentina LAVAGNINO, Nicolás J., Valeria P. CARREIRA, Julián MENSCH, Esteban HASSON and Juan J. FANARA Laboratorio de Evolución. Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Pabellón II. Ciudad Universitaria. C1428HA. Buenos Aires, Argentina; e-mail: [email protected] Distribución geográfica y hospedadores de Zaprionus indianus (Diptera: Drosophilidae) en el noreste de Argentina RESUMEN. El primer registro publicado de la especie africana Zaprionus indianus Gupta 1970 en el continente Americano se refiere a individuos observados en frutos caídos de «caqui» (Diospyros kaki Linnaei) en la ciudad de São Paulo, (Brasil) en Marzo de 1999. Desde esa fecha, esta especie ha colonizado ambientes naturales y perturbados en todo el continente.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermal Sensitivity of the Spiroplasma-Drosophila Hydei Protective Symbiosis: the Best of 2 Climes, the Worst of Climes
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.30.070938; this version posted May 2, 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. 1 Thermal sensitivity of the Spiroplasma-Drosophila hydei protective symbiosis: The best of 2 climes, the worst of climes. 3 4 Chris Corbin, Jordan E. Jones, Ewa Chrostek, Andy Fenton & Gregory D. D. Hurst* 5 6 Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Crown 7 Street, Liverpool L69 7ZB, UK 8 9 * For correspondence: [email protected] 10 11 Short title: Thermal sensitivity of a protective symbiosis 12 13 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.30.070938; this version posted May 2, 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. 14 Abstract 15 16 The outcome of natural enemy attack in insects has commonly been found to be influenced 17 by the presence of protective symbionts in the host. The degree to which protection 18 functions in natural populations, however, will depend on the robustness of the phenotype 19 to variation in the abiotic environment. We studied the impact of a key environmental 20 parameter – temperature – on the efficacy of the protective effect of the symbiont 21 Spiroplasma on its host Drosophila hydei, against attack by the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina 22 heterotoma.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTHROPODA Subphylum Hexapoda Protura, Springtails, Diplura, and Insects
    NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects ROD P. MACFARLANE, PETER A. MADDISON, IAN G. ANDREW, JOCELYN A. BERRY, PETER M. JOHNS, ROBERT J. B. HOARE, MARIE-CLAUDE LARIVIÈRE, PENELOPE GREENSLADE, ROSA C. HENDERSON, COURTenaY N. SMITHERS, RicarDO L. PALMA, JOHN B. WARD, ROBERT L. C. PILGRIM, DaVID R. TOWNS, IAN McLELLAN, DAVID A. J. TEULON, TERRY R. HITCHINGS, VICTOR F. EASTOP, NICHOLAS A. MARTIN, MURRAY J. FLETCHER, MARLON A. W. STUFKENS, PAMELA J. DALE, Daniel BURCKHARDT, THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, STEVEN A. TREWICK defining feature of the Hexapoda, as the name suggests, is six legs. Also, the body comprises a head, thorax, and abdomen. The number A of abdominal segments varies, however; there are only six in the Collembola (springtails), 9–12 in the Protura, and 10 in the Diplura, whereas in all other hexapods there are strictly 11. Insects are now regarded as comprising only those hexapods with 11 abdominal segments. Whereas crustaceans are the dominant group of arthropods in the sea, hexapods prevail on land, in numbers and biomass. Altogether, the Hexapoda constitutes the most diverse group of animals – the estimated number of described species worldwide is just over 900,000, with the beetles (order Coleoptera) comprising more than a third of these. Today, the Hexapoda is considered to contain four classes – the Insecta, and the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura. The latter three classes were formerly allied with the insect orders Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and Thysanura (silverfish) as the insect subclass Apterygota (‘wingless’). The Apterygota is now regarded as an artificial assemblage (Bitsch & Bitsch 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Abundance of Mycophagous Arthropods Present on Different Species of Fungi in Relation to Resource Abundance at Different Spatial Scales
    Eur. J. Entomol. 102: 39–46, 2005 ISSN 1210-5759 Abundance of mycophagous arthropods present on different species of fungi in relation to resource abundance at different spatial scales KAZUO H. TAKAHASHI1*, NOBUKO TUNO2 and TAKASHI KAGAYA1 1Laboratory of Forest Zoology, Department of Forest Science, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1, Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8657, Japan 2Department of Vector Ecology and Environment, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, 852-8523, Japan Key words. Host selection, fungi, fungus-visiting arthropods, spatial scale Abstract. The abundance of Coleoptera, Diptera and Collembola on different species of fungi was investigated in relation to the size and abundance of fungal resources at different spatial scales; i.e., the size of the fungal fruiting body, the quality of resource in terms of number of conspecific sporophores growing within a radius of 50 cm, crowding of the clumps of fruiting bodies, and the quality of resource within a plot (20 m × 30 m). Multiple linear regression analyses showed that the influential spatial scale varied among the arthropod orders. The amount of resource at the scale of a clump made a significant contribution to the abundance of Coleoptera, and the fruiting body size significantly affected the abundance of Diptera on each fungal species. Collembolan abundance was sig- nificantly affected by the crowding of the clumps of fruiting bodies and the number of fruiting bodies per plot. These results suggest that the spatial distribution of fungal fruiting bodies may determine whether they are selected by arthropods visited. INTRODUCTION mycophagous insects increases with host resource It is reported that the composition and abundance of density.
    [Show full text]
  • Drosophila Suzukii
    Archival copy. For current information, see the OSU Extension Catalog: https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/em9026 Protecting Garden Fruits from Spotted Wing Drosophila Drosophila suzukii EM 9026 • April 2011 potted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii; SWD) is a new, invasive pest that attacks stone Sfruits and berries. This pest is native to Japan, where the first reports of this “vinegar fly” date to 1916, and has been established in Hawaii since the early 1980s, although no noticeable damage has been reported there. On the mainland United States, SWD was first discovered in the fall of 2008, maturing on raspberry and strawberry fruits in California. In 2009, SWD was reported in Oregon, Washington, Florida, and British Columbia, Canada. In 2010, SWD flies were caught in monitoring traps in Figure 1. Following the 2009 and 2010 growing seasons, Michigan, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, and spotted wing drosophila was known to be present in Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Douglas, Hood River, Louisiana. In 2011, SWD was reported for the first Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Linn, Lincoln, Marion, time in Baja, Mexico. Multnomah, Polk, Wasco, Washington, Umatilla, and In Oregon, SWD has been confirmed in 17 coun- Yamhill counties. SWD presence was confirmed by ties (figure 1). These counties are home to several identifying flies collected in traps or fly larvae in infested fruit. commercial fruit producers as well as many home Image by Helmuth Rogg, Oregon Department of Agriculture, gardeners who tend backyard berries and fruits. reproduced by permission. Given the rapid spread of SWD in Oregon and across the United States, it is reasonable to suspect that SWD is widespread, well established, and most likely present in additional counties and states.
    [Show full text]
  • Drosophila As a Model for Infectious Diseases
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review Drosophila as a Model for Infectious Diseases J. Michael Harnish 1,2 , Nichole Link 1,2,3,† and Shinya Yamamoto 1,2,4,5,* 1 Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine (BCM), Houston, TX 77030, USA; [email protected] (J.M.H.); [email protected] (N.L.) 2 Jan and Dan Duncan Neurological Research Institute, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, USA 3 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA 4 Department of Neuroscience, BCM, Houston, TX 77030, USA 5 Development, Disease Models and Therapeutics Graduate Program, BCM, Houston, TX 77030, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-832-824-8119 † Current Affiliation: Department of Neurobiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. Abstract: The fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, has been used to understand fundamental principles of genetics and biology for over a century. Drosophila is now also considered an essential tool to study mechanisms underlying numerous human genetic diseases. In this review, we will discuss how flies can be used to deepen our knowledge of infectious disease mechanisms in vivo. Flies make effective and applicable models for studying host-pathogen interactions thanks to their highly con- served innate immune systems and cellular processes commonly hijacked by pathogens. Drosophila researchers also possess the most powerful, rapid, and versatile tools for genetic manipulation in multicellular organisms. This allows for robust experiments in which specific pathogenic proteins can be expressed either one at a time or in conjunction with each other to dissect the molecular functions of each virulent factor in a cell-type-specific manner.
    [Show full text]
  • A-Glycerophosphate Dehydrogenase Within the Genus Drosophila (Dipteran Evolution/Unit Evolutionary Period) GLEN E
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 684-688, February 1977 Genetics Microcomplement fixation studies on the evolution of a-glycerophosphate dehydrogenase within the genus Drosophila (dipteran evolution/unit evolutionary period) GLEN E. COLLIER AND Ross J. MACINTYRE Section of Genetics, Development and Physiology, Plant Science Building, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 Communicated by Adrian M. Srb, November 8,1976 ABSTRACT Antisera were prepared against purified a- least in D. melanogaster, for rapid production of the energy glycerophosphate dehydrogenase (EC 1.1.1.8) (aGPDH) from needed for flight (7-9). Drosophila melanogaster, D. virifis, and D. busckii. The im- munological distances between the enzymes from the 3 species The third criterion is that the protein should be evolving and those from 31 additional drosophilid species agree in gen- relatively slowly. Although cytogenetic analysis and interspe- eral with the accepted phylogeny of the genus. These data per- cific hybridization are adequate for est*blishing phylogenetic mit an estimate that the subgenus Sophophora diverged 52 relationships among closely related species, a protein that has million years ago from the line leading to the subgenus Droso- changed slowly is particularly useful for establishing the rela- phila. The antiserum against melanogaster aGPDH was ca- pable of distinguishing alielic variants of aGPDH. On the basis tionships among species groups, subgenera, genera, and even of presumed single amino acid substitutions, no-drosophilid families or orders. Brosemer et al. (10) and Fink et al. (11) have aGPDH tested differed from the melanogaster enzyme by more established with immunological tests that the structure of than eight or nine substitutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Stable Structural Color Patterns Displayed on Transparent Insect Wings
    Stable structural color patterns displayed on transparent insect wings Ekaterina Shevtsovaa,1, Christer Hanssona,b,1, Daniel H. Janzenc,1, and Jostein Kjærandsend,1 aDepartment of Biology, Lund University, Sölvegatan 35, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden; bScientific Associate of the Entomology Department, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom; cDepartment of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018; and dDepartment of Biology, Museum of Zoology, Lund University, Helgonavägen 3, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden Contributed by Daniel H. Janzen, November 24, 2010 (sent for review October 5, 2010) Color patterns play central roles in the behavior of insects, and are and F). In laboratory conditions most wings are studied against a important traits for taxonomic studies. Here we report striking and white background (Fig. 1 G, H, and J), or the wings are embedded stable structural color patterns—wing interference patterns (WIPs) in a medium with a refractive index close to that of chitin (e.g., —in the transparent wings of small Hymenoptera and Diptera, ref. 19). In both cases the color reflections will be faint or in- patterns that have been largely overlooked by biologists. These ex- visible. tremely thin wings reflect vivid color patterns caused by thin film Insects are an exceedingly diverse and ancient group and interference. The visibility of these patterns is affected by the way their signal-receiver architecture of thin membranous wings the insects display their wings against various backgrounds with and color vision was apparently in place before their huge radia- different light properties. The specific color sequence displayed tion (20–22). The evolution of functional wings (Pterygota) that lacks pure red and matches the color vision of most insects, strongly can be freely operated in multidirections (Neoptera), coupled suggesting that the biological significance of WIPs lies in visual with small body size, has long been viewed as associated with their signaling.
    [Show full text]
  • Genome Size Evolution Differs Between Drosophila Subgenera with Striking Differences in Male and Female Genome Size in Sophophora
    INVESTIGATION Genome Size Evolution Differs Between Drosophila Subgenera with Striking Differences in Male and Female Genome Size in Sophophora Carl E. Hjelmen,*,†,1 Heath Blackmon,† V. Renee Holmes,* Crystal G. Burrus,† and J. Spencer Johnston* *Department of Biology and †Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 ORCID IDs: 0000-0003-3061-6458 (C.E.H.); 0000-0002-5433-4036 (H.B.); 0000-0002-1034-3707 (V.R.H.); 0000-0003-4792-2945 (J.S.J.) ABSTRACT Genome size varies across the tree of life, with no clear correlation to organismal complexity or KEYWORDS coding sequence, but with differences in non-coding regions. Phylogenetic methods have recently been Genome size incorporated to further disentangle this enigma, yet most of these studies have focused on widely diverged sex chromosome species. Few have compared patterns of genome size change in closely related species with known Drosophila structural differences in the genome. As a consequence, the relationship between genome size and phylogenetic differences in chromosome number or inter-sexual differences attributed to XY systems are largely comparative unstudied. We hypothesize that structural differences associated with chromosome number and X-Y methods chromosome differentiation, should result in differing rates and patterns of genome size change. In this study, we utilize the subgenera within the Drosophila to ask if patterns and rates of genome size change differ between closely related species with differences in chromosome numbers and states of the XY system. Genome sizes for males and females of 152 species are used to answer these questions (with 92 newly added or updated estimates).
    [Show full text]
  • Johann Wilhelm Meigen - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Johann Wilhelm Meigen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wilhelm_Meigen From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Johann Wilhelm Meigen (3 May 1764 – 11 July 1845) was a German entomologist famous for his pioneering work on Diptera. 1 Life 1.1 Early years 1.2 Early entomology 1.3 Return to Solingen Johann Wilhelm 1.4 To Burtscheid Meigen 1.5 Controversy 1.6 Marriage 1.7 Coal fossils 1.8 Offer from Wiedemann 1.9 Wiedemann's second visit and a trip to Scandinavia 1.10 Last years 2 Achievements 3 Flies described by Meigen (not complete) 3.1 Works 3.2 Collections 4 External links 5 Sources and references 6 References Early years Meigen was born in Solingen, the fifth of eight children of Johann Clemens Meigen and Sibylla Margaretha Bick. His parents, though not poor, were not wealthy either. They ran a small shop in Solingen. His paternal grandparents however owned an estate and hamlet with twenty houses. Adding to the rental income, Meigen’s grandfather was a farmer and a guild mastercutler in Solingen. Two years after Meigen was born his grandparents died and his parents moved to the family estate. This was already heavily indebted by the Seven Years' War, then bad crops and rash speculations forced sale and the family moved back to Solingen. Meigen attended the town school but only for a short time. Fortunately he had learned to read and write on his grandfather’s estate and he read widely at home as well as taking an interest in natural history.
    [Show full text]
  • Drosophila Suzukii; a New Pest of Cherries Brian Stephens
    Wyre Forest Study Group Drosophila suzukii; a new pest of cherries Brian Stephens Drosophila suzukii, male left, female right Wikimedia Commons, photo by Shane F, McEvey (Australian Museum) Most species of Drosophila, the familiar fruit flies were found on crops of raspberry and strawberry. In and vinegar flies, feed on rotting or fermenting fruit, the same publication, records from Norfolk to Dorset but Drosophila suzukii feeds and lives upon fresh, during September and October, 2014, suggest that the unwounded, ripening fruit and has, since 2008, become insect has become widespread in southeast England. an important pest of soft fruit and stone fruit world- wide, threatening food supplies and the commercial Data on the National Biodiversity Network Atlas fruit industry. gives five records, widely scattered; Suffolk, (24/9/14); Penarth (6/11/15); Anglesey Abbey NT, 2/8/17; Native to southeast Asia, the species was seen in Wimborne, 28/9/17; Portishead, (19/12/17). Interestingly Japan in 1916. By the early 1930s it was widespread in there are seven records from the Shrewsbury area; Japan, Korea and China and was described officially near the foot of Haughmond Hill, [NGR SJ 541 131], by Matsumura in 1931. It was recorded in Hawaii in (25/9/16), and nearby [SJ53 13](25/9/16); three from the 1980s. It first appeared in central California in Shrewsbury Cemetery, [NGR SJ 491 113], (23/7/17, August 2008. The eastern spread continued through 10/10/17, 25/10/17); Lanymynech Hill, [NGR SJ 268 218], temperate climates, until by 2012 it could be found all ( (10/10/18); Wrekin, [NGR SJ 63 08], (17/10/18).
    [Show full text]