4.3 Article

The Genetics of Male Pheromone Preference Difference Between Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans

期刊

G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 401-415

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400780

关键词

male mate choice; pheromones; courtship behavior; reproductive isolation; behavioral genetics

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute through the Science Education Program
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01 GM098614]
  3. Cornell Drosophila Stock Center [CSBR 1820594]
  4. Bloomington Drosophila stock center [NIH P400D018537]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Species of flies in the genus Drosophila differ dramatically in their preferences for mates, but little is known about the genetic or neurological underpinnings of this evolution. Recent advances have been made to our understanding of one case: pheromone preference evolution between the species D. melanogaster and D. simulans. Males of both species are very sensitive to the pheromone 7,11-HD that is present only on the cuticle of female D. melanogaster. In one species this cue activates courtship, and in the other it represses it. This change in valence was recently shown to result from the modification of central processing neurons, rather than changes in peripherally expressed receptors, but nothing is known about the genetic changes that are responsible. In the current study, we show that a 1.35 Mb locus on the X chromosome has a major effect on male 7,11-HD preference. Unfortunately, when this locus is divided, the effect is largely lost. We instead attempt to filter the 159 genes within this region using our newfound understanding of the neuronal underpinnings of this phenotype to identify and test candidate genes. We present the results of these tests, and discuss the difficulty of identifying the genetic architecture of behavioral traits and the potential of connecting these genetic changes to the neuronal modifications that elicit different behaviors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据