Avoiding DEET through Insect Gustatory Receptors

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Drosophila TRPA1 Channel Is Required to Avoid the Naturally Occurring Insect Repellent Citronellal Young Kwon, Sang Hoon Kim, David S. Ronderos, Youngseok.
Advertisements

The Molecular and Cellular Basis of Bitter Taste in Drosophila
The Molecular Basis of Odor Coding in the Drosophila Larva
Pinky Kain, Anupama Dahanukar  Neuron 
Independent, Reciprocal Neuromodulatory Control of Sweet and Bitter Taste Sensitivity during Starvation in Drosophila  Hidehiko K. Inagaki, Ketaki M.
Drosophila in the Study of Neurodegenerative Disease
Volume 17, Issue 10, Pages (May 2007)
Volume 78, Issue 5, Pages (June 2013)
Glucose Shortens the Life Span of C
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages (March 2013)
Volume 68, Issue 6, Pages (December 2010)
Two Gr Genes Underlie Sugar Reception in Drosophila
Volume 53, Issue 1, Pages (January 2007)
Volume 79, Issue 4, Pages (August 2013)
Age-Related Changes in Insulin-like Signaling Lead to Intermediate-Term Memory Impairment in Drosophila  Kento Tanabe, Motoyuki Itoh, Ayako Tonoki  Cell.
Savitha Kalidas, Dean P. Smith  Neuron 
Starvation-Induced Depotentiation of Bitter Taste in Drosophila
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages (January 2017)
Volume 49, Issue 2, Pages (January 2006)
The Basis of Food Texture Sensation in Drosophila
Distinct Protein Domains and Expression Patterns Confer Divergent Axon Guidance Functions for Drosophila Robo Receptors  Bettina Spitzweck, Marko Brankatschk,
Volume 45, Issue 5, Pages (March 2005)
Matthew H. Sieber, Carl S. Thummel  Cell Metabolism 
Dynamics of Learning-Related cAMP Signaling and Stimulus Integration in the Drosophila Olfactory Pathway  Seth M. Tomchik, Ronald L. Davis  Neuron  Volume.
Mechanisms of Odor Receptor Gene Choice in Drosophila
Volume 61, Issue 5, Pages (March 2009)
Volume 24, Issue 17, Pages (September 2014)
PingXi Xu, Rachel Atkinson, David N.M. Jones, Dean P. Smith  Neuron 
Toward a Science of Computational Ethology
Drosophila Learn Opposing Components of a Compound Food Stimulus
HBL-1 Patterns Synaptic Remodeling in C. elegans
Volume 11, Issue 8, Pages (May 2015)
Volume 75, Issue 4, Pages (August 2012)
A PDF/NPF Neuropeptide Signaling Circuitry of Male Drosophila melanogaster Controls Rival-Induced Prolonged Mating  Woo Jae Kim, Lily Yeh Jan, Yuh Nung.
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages e3 (March 2018)
Volume 97, Issue 5, Pages e4 (March 2018)
Alejandro Murad, Myai Emery-Le, Patrick Emery  Neuron 
Calcium Taste Avoidance in Drosophila
A PDF/NPF Neuropeptide Signaling Circuitry of Male Drosophila melanogaster Controls Rival-Induced Prolonged Mating  Woo Jae Kim, Lily Yeh Jan, Yuh Nung.
Volume 66, Issue 3, Pages (May 2010)
Abhishek Chatterjee, Shintaro Tanoue, Jerry H. Houl, Paul E. Hardin 
Obesity-Blocking Neurons in Drosophila
A GABAergic Feedback Shapes Dopaminergic Input on the Drosophila Mushroom Body to Promote Appetitive Long-Term Memory  Alice Pavlowsky, Johann Schor,
Mario R. Pagani, Kimihiko Oishi, Bruce D. Gelb, Yi Zhong  Cell 
Taste Representations in the Drosophila Brain
A Taste Receptor Required for the Caffeine Response In Vivo
Volume 74, Issue 4, Pages (May 2012)
Lateral Facilitation between Primary Mechanosensory Neurons Controls Nose Touch Perception in C. elegans  Marios Chatzigeorgiou, William R. Schafer  Neuron 
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages (June 2008)
insomniac and Cullin-3 Regulate Sleep and Wakefulness in Drosophila
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages (March 2015)
A Hierarchy of Cell Intrinsic and Target-Derived Homeostatic Signaling
Clock and cycle Limit Starvation-Induced Sleep Loss in Drosophila
Samuel James Walker, Verónica María Corrales-Carvajal, Carlos Ribeiro 
Kanyan Xu, Xiangzhong Zheng, Amita Sehgal  Cell Metabolism 
Kevin Mann, Michael D. Gordon, Kristin Scott  Neuron 
Glial Cells Physiologically Modulate Clock Neurons and Circadian Behavior in a Calcium-Dependent Manner  Fanny S. Ng, Michelle M. Tangredi, F. Rob Jackson 
Age-Related Changes in Insulin-like Signaling Lead to Intermediate-Term Memory Impairment in Drosophila  Kento Tanabe, Motoyuki Itoh, Ayako Tonoki  Cell.
Volume 27, Issue 18, Pages e4 (September 2017)
Martin Häsemeyer, Nilay Yapici, Ulrike Heberlein, Barry J. Dickson 
Sugar Receptors in Drosophila
Aging Specifically Impairs amnesiac-Dependent Memory in Drosophila
Matthew H. Sieber, Carl S. Thummel  Cell Metabolism 
Marie P. Suver, Akira Mamiya, Michael H. Dickinson  Current Biology 
Mechanism of Acetic Acid Gustatory Repulsion in Drosophila
The Transcription Factor Mef2 Links the Drosophila Core Clock to Fas2, Neuronal Morphology, and Circadian Behavior  Anna Sivachenko, Yue Li, Katharine C.
Shixing Zhang, Gregg Roman  Current Biology 
Allison L. Blum, Wanhe Li, Mike Cressy, Josh Dubnau  Current Biology 
Volume 20, Issue 18, Pages (September 2010)
Shamik DasGupta, Scott Waddell  Current Biology 
Presentation transcript:

Avoiding DEET through Insect Gustatory Receptors Youngseok Lee, Sang Hoon Kim, Craig Montell  Neuron  Volume 67, Issue 4, Pages 555-561 (August 2010) DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.07.006 Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Behavioral Avoidance to DEET Is Mediated by Gustatory Receptor Neurons (A) Structure of DEET. (B–D) Binary food choice assays using Drosophila melanogaster. All assays were performed with 5 mM sucrose (either alone or mixture with each indicated concentration of DEET) and 1 mM sucrose. The dotted lines indicate a lack of bias between the two alternative food choices (P.I. = 0.5). The experiments presented were conducted in a blind manner. (B) Dose response curve using the wild-type control flies (w1118) and the indicated concentrations of DEET. (C) Binary assays performed after the ORNs or GRNs were either ablated or inactivated. The cell death gene (UAS-hid) or the Kir2.1 channel (UAS-Kir2.1) were expressed in ORNs or GRNs under control of the Gr33a-GAL4 (Gr33aGAL4/+) or the Or83b-GAL4. The normal DEET avoidance in Or83b-GAL4/UAS-Kir2.1 flies was not due to ineffectiveness of these transgenes to affect olfaction since these flies did not avoid 0.1% benzaldehyde (Figure S1B). (D) Transient synaptic ablation of aversive GRNs using the Gr33a-GAL4 (Moon et al., 2009) and UAS-shits1. The assays were performed at the permissive (22°C) and nonpermissive temperatures (30°C) for the shits1. (E) Schematic illustration of gustatory sensilla on the fly labellum. We used the short sensillum (s6) for most tip recordings. (F) Dose response curve using DEET and s6 sensilla. (G) Representative tip recordings obtained from an s6 sensillum and a long (l4) sensillum using buffer only, 0.2% DEET or 50 mM sucrose. The asterisks indicate the addition of the recording pipets to the sensilla. Arrowheads indicate tastant-induced action potentials. The error bars indicate SEMs. Neuron 2010 67, 555-561DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2010.07.006) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Three Gustatory Receptors Are Required for DEET Avoidance using the Binary Food Choice Assay (A) Survey of Gr mutants and the Or83b2 mutant for defects in the aversion to 0.2% DEET. Gr66aex represents Gr66aex83. (B–D) Rescue of the avoidance defects in response to 0.1% and 0.2% DEET using wild-type Gr transgenes. Most data were collected in a blind manner. However, similar results were obtained when the data were collected in nonblinded experiments (e.g., Figures S2A and S2B). (B) Two Gr33a alleles, Gr33a1 and Gr33aGAL4, displayed similar impairments in aversion to DEET. The behavior was rescued by expression of UAS-Gr33a+ under control of the Gr33aGAL4. See Figures S2A and S2B for additional information. (C) The deficit in ΔGr32a was rescued with a Gr32a+ genomic fragment, gGr32a+. See Figure S2D for additional rescue data using the GAL4/UAS system. (D) Rescue of the Gr66aex83 DEET avoidance defect. The genomic DNA included in the 8-Gr66a+ transgene encoded Gr66a+ and two flanking genes (CG7066 and CG7188) (Moon et al., 2006). The genomic DNA in 7-Gr66a- included the two flanking genes, but not Gr66a. The error bars indicated SEMs. Neuron 2010 67, 555-561DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2010.07.006) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 DEET-Induced Action Potentials Required Gr66a, Gr33a, and Gr32a (A) Tip recordings showing the mean responses in s6 sensilla to 0.2% DEET. The deficits in the Gr66aex83, Gr33a1, and ΔGr32a mutants were rescued significantly by the wild-type transgenes. The rescue control for Gr66a was 7-Gr66a− and the rescue transgene was 8-Gr66a+. Gr66aex stands for Gr66aex83. The Gr33a rescue construct was UAS-Gr33a+ and the Gr32a rescue was performed using the genomic transgene, gGr32a+. The error bars indicate SEMs. (B) Representative traces of DEET-induced action potentials in the wild-type control, Gr33a1 and Gr33a expressing the wild-type transgene: Gr33a1/Gr33aGAL4;UAS-Gr33a/+. The times when the recording pipets were applied to the s6 sensilla are indicated by the asterisks. Arrowheads indicate DEET-induced action potentials. Neuron 2010 67, 555-561DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2010.07.006) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Durability and Toxicity of DEET and Requirements for Gr32a and Gr66a for the Responses to Multiple Naturally Occurring Repellent Compounds (A and C) Tip recordings. (B and D) Two-way choice tests. (A) ΔGr32a flies showed reduced frequencies of action potentials in response to several repellent compounds (also refer to Figure S3A) but a normal caffeine response. (B) ΔGr32a flies were impaired in behavioral avoidance to multiple repellent compounds (also refer to Figure S3B). (C) The frequencies of action potentials induced by lobeline, papaverine and strychnine were nearly eliminated in Gr66aex83. These defects were rescued significantly by 8-Gr66a+, but not by 7-Gr66a−. (D) The behavioral avoidances to lobeline and papaverine were reduced in Gr66aex83. These defects were reversed by 8-Gr66a+, but not by 7-Gr66a−. The slight reduction in the behavioral avoidance to strychnine was statistically significant. (E) Time-dependent effects on the survival of wild-type control flies resulting from consuming 1% sucrose combined with the indicated concentrations of DEET. The error bars indicated SEMs. Neuron 2010 67, 555-561DOI: (10.1016/j.neuron.2010.07.006) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. Terms and Conditions