4.7 Article

Adult and larval photoreceptors use different mechanisms to specify the same rhodopsin fates

Journal

GENES & DEVELOPMENT
Volume 21, Issue 17, Pages 2182-2195

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gad.1565407

Keywords

Drosophila; visual system development; photoreceptor specification; transcription factor interaction; EGFR signaling

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U122673973] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [MC_U122673973] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U122673973] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NCRR NIH HHS [C06 RR015518, C06 RR-15518-01] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY013010, EY013010] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although development of the adult Drosophila compound eye is very well understood, little is known about development of photoreceptors (PRs) in the simple larval eye. We show here that the larval eye is composed of 12 PRs, four of which express blue-sensitive rhodopsin5 (rh5) while the other eight contain green-sensitive rh6. This is similar to the 30:70 ratio of adult blue and green R8 cells. However, the stochastic choice of adult color PRs and the bistable loop of the warts and melted tumor suppressor genes that unambiguously specify rh5 and rh6 in R8 PRs are not involved in specification of larval PRs. Instead, primary PR precursors signal via EGFR to surrounding tissue to develop as secondary precursors, which will become Rh6-expressing PRs. EGFR signaling is required for the survival of the Rh6 subtype. Primary precursors give rise to the Rh5 subtype. Furthermore, the combinatorial action of the transcription factors Spalt, Seven-up, and Orthodenticle specifies the two PR subtypes. Therefore, even though the larval PRs and adult R8 PRs express the same rhodopsins (rh5 and rh6), they use very distinct mechanisms for their specification.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available