4.8 Article

Hox dosage contributes to flight appendage morphology in Drosophila

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-23293-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CNRS
  2. ENS-Lyon
  3. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale [FRM 160896]
  4. Centre Franco-Indien pour la Promotion de la Recherche Avancee (Cefipra) [5503-P]
  5. DFG [LO 844/5-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authors demonstrate that the Hox genes Antennapedia (Antp) and Ultrabithorax (Ubx) play a role in controlling flight appendage morphology in Drosophila, with a particular spatial expression profile and dosage. Interestingly, this phenomenon is also found in evolutionary distant four-winged insect species.
Flying insects have invaded all the aerial space on Earth and this astonishing radiation could not have been possible without a remarkable morphological diversification of their flight appendages. Here, we show that characteristic spatial expression profiles and levels of the Hox genes Antennapedia (Antp) and Ultrabithorax (Ubx) underlie the formation of two different flight organs in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. We further demonstrate that flight appendage morphology is dependent on specific Hox doses. Interestingly, we find that wing morphology from evolutionary distant four-winged insect species is also associated with a differential expression of Antp and Ubx. We propose that variation in the spatial expression profile and dosage of Hox proteins is a major determinant of flight appendage diversification in Drosophila and possibly in other insect species during evolution. Here, the authors show that the Hox genes Antennapedia (Antp) and Ultrabithorax (Ubx) control flight appendage morphology in Drosophila. This role is dependent on a particular spatial expression profile and dosage, which was also found in evolutionary distant four-winged insect species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available