Contrasting influences of Drosophila white/mini-white on ethanol sensitivity in two different behavioral assays.
- Authors
- Chan, Robin F; Lewellyn, Lara; DeLoyht, Jacqueline M; Sennett, Kristyn; Coffman, Scarlett; Hewitt, Matthew; Bettinger, Jill C; Warrick, John M; Grotewiel, Mike
- Year
- 2014
- Journal
- Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research
- PMID
- 24890118
- DOI
- 10.1111/acer.12421
- PMCID
- PMC4049357
BACKGROUND: The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has been used extensively to investigate genetic mechanisms of ethanol (EtOH)-related behaviors. Many past studies in flies, including studies from our laboratory, have manipulated gene expression using transposons carrying the genetic-phenotypic marker mini-white(mini-w), a derivative of the endogenous gene white(w). Whether the mini-w transgenic marker or the endogenous w gene influences behavioral responses to acute EtOH exposure in flies has not been systematically investigated. METHODS: We manipulated mini-w and w expression via (i) transposons marked with mini-w, (ii) RNAi against mini-w and w, and (iii) a null allele of w. We assessed EtOH sensitivity and tolerance using a previously described eRING assay (based on climbing in the presence of EtOH) and an assay based on EtOH-induced sedation. RESULTS: In eRING assays, EtOH-induced impairment of climbing correlated inversely with expression of the mini-w marker from a series of transposon insertions. Additionally, flies harboring a null allele of w or flies with RNAi-mediated knockdown of mini-w were significantly more sensitive to EtOH in eRING assays than controls expressing endogenous w or the mini-w marker. In contrast, EtOH sensitivity and rapid tolerance measured in the EtOH sedation assay were not affected by decreased expression of mini-w or endogenous w in flies. CONCLUSIONS: EtOH sensitivity measured in the eRING assay is noticeably influenced by w and mini-w, making eRING problematic for studies on EtOH-related behavior in Drosophila using transgenes marked with mini-w. In contrast, the EtOH sensitivity assay described here is a suitable behavioral paradigm for studies on EtOH sensitivity and rapid tolerance in Drosophila including those that use widely available transgenes marked with mini-w.
Mini-w and endogenous w influence ethanol sensitivity measured in eRING assaysA. Flies harboring transposon insertions in TGFβR genes (tkv, wit and babo; blue circles), Akap200 (green triangles) or Gal4 drivers (red squares) were ranked by eye color (w+ rank, X axis) and tested in eRING assays for sedation to ethanol vapor from 30% ethanol (TGFβR and Gal4 drivers) or 50% ethanol (Akap200). Compiled T50 values (fold of w1118 controls) from all genotypes correlated with w+ rank (Pearson r=0.7503, p<0.0001). TGFβR lines tested were tkv alleles 7, 8, d07811, f02766, f03305, c06013 and KG05071, wit alleles d02492, e00566 and e01243 and babo alleles c04263, c05710, k16912. Akap200 lines tested were EP2254, c01373, d01782, d03938, d07255, EY04645 and EY12242. Gal4 lines tested were da-Gal4/+, mef2-Gal4/+, Appl-Gal4/+, Actin5cGal4/+, GMR-Gal4/+, 24B-Gal4/+, and elav-Gal4/+. See Figure S3 for representative eye color images. B. There was an overall effect of genotype on T50s from eRING studies using vapor from 30% ethanol (one-way ANOVA, p=0.0003, n=10 per genotype). mini-w-expressing elav-Gal4/+ and v30034/+ flies had elevated T50 values compared to white-eyed w1118 controls and elav-Gal4,v30034 white knockdown flies (*Bonferroni’s, p<0.05). T50s in w1118 controls and elav-Gal4,v30034 flies were not distinguishable (Bonferroni’s, n.s.). C. T50s in w1118 flies tested in eRING studies with vapor from 30% ethanol were significantly lower than in w+ flies (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for Gaussian distribution; w1118, p>0.01, n.s.; w+, p=0.0017, significantly non-Gaussian; *Mann-Whitney test, p=0.0147, n=10).
Exposure to ethanol vapor in ethanol sedation assays causes dose-dependent sedation and internal ethanol concentrationsData are from w1118 control female (A, C and E) and male (B, D and F) flies exposed to vapor from the indicated concentrations of ethanol (0, 30, 40 and 50%). A and B. Ethanol sedation time-course. Time and ethanol concentration had significant effects on percent active flies and there was a significant interaction between time and ethanol concentration for both females and males (individual two-way ANOVAs; time, p<0.0001; ethanol concentration, p<0.0001; interaction, p<0.0001; n=5 for females, n=10 for males). C and D. Ethanol sedation ST50 values. ST50 values derived from the data in panels A and B were significantly affected by ethanol concentration in both males and females (individual one-way ANOVAs, p<0.0001, n=5 for females, n=10 for males). ST50 values in response to all ethanol concentrations were significantly different (Bonferroni’s multiple comparison, p<0.001 in all cases). ST50 values cannot be calculated for flies exposed to 0% ethanol (water) because flies do not become sedated in the absence of the drug. E and F. Internal ethanol concentrations. A 60-minute exposure to vapor from increasing concentrations of ethanol progressively increased whole body internal ethanol concentrations in flies (individual one-way ANOVAs, p≤0.0002, n=6 for females, n=5 for males). Internal ethanol after any given exposure was significantly different from internal ethanol in the next lower and higher groups (Bonferroni’s, p<0.05).
Rapid tolerance to ethanol in ethanol sedation assaysData are from w1118 control female (A, C and E) and male (B, D and F) flies. A and B. Sedation time-courses from flies exposed once to vapor from water (W), exposed once to vapor from 50% ethanol (E), exposed to water vapor, allowed to recover for 4 hours, then exposed to vapor from 50% ethanol (WE), and exposed to vapor from 50% ethanol, allowed to recover for 4 hours, then exposed again to ethanol vapor (EE). Time and ethanol treatment had significant effects on the percentage of active flies and there was an interaction between time and ethanol treatment (individual two-way ANOVAs; time, p<0.0001; ethanol treatment, p<0.0001; interaction, p<0.0001, n=5–32 per treatment group). C and D. ST50 values derived from the data in panels A and B were significantly affected by ethanol treatment (one-way ANOVA, p<0.0001). ST50 values in EE flies were significantly different from those in E and WE flies (*Bonferroni’s, p<0.001), whereas ST50 values in E and WE flies were not statistically distinguishable (Bonferroni’s multiple comparison, n.s.). E and F. Internal ethanol concentrations increased with time of ethanol exposure, but were not significantly different in E and EE flies (individual two-way ANOVAs; time, p≤0.0002; E vs. EE, n.s.).
Expression of mini-w has a negligible impact on ethanol sedation sensitivity and internal ethanol concentrations in ethanol sedation assaysA. Compiled ST50 values from ethanol sedation assays with vapor from 50% ethanol did not correlate with w+ rank in TGFβR (blue circles), Akap200 (green triangles) and Gal4 (red squares) strains (Pearson r=−0.1754, p=0.4125, n.s.). ST50 values are represented as fold of w1118 controls. B. Knockdown of mini-w in the nervous system and initial sensitivity to ethanol. Expression of w RNAi transgenes (v30033 and v30034) was driven in the nervous system by elav-Gal4. Genotype had a significant overall effect on ST50 values from ethanol sedation assays with vapor from 50% ethanol (one-way ANOVA, p=0.0008, n=8–16 per genotype). ST50 values in w1118, elav-Ga4/+, v30033/+ and v30034/+ genotypes were not statistically different (Bonferroni’s, n.s.). ST50 values in elav-Gal4;v30033 and elav-Gal4/v30034 knockdown animals were greater than in elav-Ga4/+ (Bonferroni’s, *p<0.05), but were not significantly different from v30033/+ or v30034/+ controls (Bonferroni’s, n.s.). C. Internal ethanol concentrations in nervous system mini-w knockdown flies after 30 minutes of exposure to vapor from 50% ethanol in ethanol sedation assays. Genotype had a significant overall effect on internal ethanol (one-way ANOVA; p=0.0388; n=4), but no differences between relevant genotype pairs were found (Bonferroni’s, n.s.).
Nervous system knockdown of mini-w in flies with altered sensitivity to ethanolExpression of v30034 along with either Cnx14D RNAi v5597 (A) or ph-p RNAi v50024 (B) RNAi was driven in the nervous system by elav-Gal4. All flies tested were females. A. Knockdown of mini-w in the nervous system of in flies with decreased sedation in response to vapor from 50% ethanol. There was a significant overall effect of genotype on ST50s (one-way ANOVA, p<0.0001, n=8). ST50 values were not significantly different in w1118, v5597/+, elav-Gal4/+ or elav-Gal4,v30034/+ flies (Bonferroni’s, n.s.). elav-Gal4/v5597 and elav-Gal4,v30034/v5597 exhibited significantly higher ST50 values compared to relevant controls (*Bonferroni’s, p<0.05 compared to v5597/+ and elav-Gal4/+; **Bonferroni’s, p<0.05 compared to v5597/+ and elav-Gal4,v30034). elav-Gal4/v5597 and elav-Gal4,v30034/v5597 were not statistically distinguishable (Bonferroni’s, n.s.). B. Knockdown of mini-w in the nervous system in flies with increased sensitivity to sedation from vapor from 50% ethanol. Overall, genotype had a significant effect on ST50s (one-way ANOVA, p<0.0001, n=8). ST50 values were indistinguishable in w1118, elav-Gal4/+ and elav-Gal4,v30034/+, whereas the ph- v50024/+ control was significantly different from w1118 (#Bonferroni’s, p<0.05). elav-Gal4;v50024 and elav-Gal4/v30034;v50024 were not different from each other, but they were significantly different from their relevant controls (*Bonferroni’s, p<0.05 compared to elav-Gal4/+ and v50024/+; **Bonferroni’s, p<0.05 compared to elav-Gal4/+ and elav-Gal4,v30034).
Ethanol sedation sensitivity and internal ethanol concentrations in w null and w wild-type fliesST50 values in response to vapor from 50% ethanol were indistinguishable in w null (w1118) and w wild-type (w+) females (panel A, unpaired t-test, n.s., n=6 for w1118, n=21 for w+) or males (panel B, (unpaired t-test, n.s., n=10 per genotype). C and D. Internal ethanol concentrations in response to vapor from 50% ethanol were not distinguishable in w1118 and w+ females (C) and males (D), but were affected by duration of ethanol exposure (individual two-way ANOVAs; effect of w genotype, n.s.; effect of ethanol exposure time, p<0.0001; n=5 per genotype, sex and exposure time).
Mutations in and RNAi-mediated knockdown of Clic reduce ethanol sensitivity in ethanol sedation assaysST50s were greater in homozygous ClicG0472 (A) and ClicEY04209 (B) transposon mutants (closed bars) than in w1118 controls (open bars) (*individual t tests, p≤0.027, n=10 per genotype) in ethanol sedation assays with vapor from 50% ethanol. Control and Clic mutant flies were reared at 20°C to circumvent homozygous lethality of the Clic alleles at 25°C. Ubiquitous (via da-Gal4, panel C, filled bar) or nervous system (via elav-Gal4, panel D, filled bar) expression of RNAi targeting Clic (v105975) lowered ethanol sensitivity compared to Gal4/+ and v105975/+ controls (open bars) (individual one-way ANOVAs, p<0.0001; *Bonferroni, p<0.05 compared to controls; n=8–10 per group). Internal ethanol concentrations were not consistently different in ubiquitous (E) and nervous system (F) Clic knockdown flies compared to Gal4 and v105975 controls (individual one-way ANOVAs; panel E, p=0.0288; panel F, p=0.0003; n=5; *Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test, p<0.05 compared to Gal4 controls). Controls are (A) w1118 in a Canton-S background, (B) 2202U, (C) WTB, and (D) the progeny from NPFR1-Gal4 or NPFR1-RNAi crossed to our standard w1118 strain.
No entities extracted from this document yet.
No uploaded files.
In this knowledge base
External
| Title | Authors | Journal | Year | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| More than meets the eye: mutation of the white gene in Drosophila has broad phenotypic and transcriptomic effects. | Rickle A et al. | — | 2025 | → |
| Mutation of the <i>white</i> gene in <i>Drosophila</i> has broad phenotypic and transcriptomic effects | Rickle A et al. | — | 2025 | — |
| A classic screening marker does not affect antennal electrophysiology but strongly regulates reproductive behaviours in Bactrocera dorsalis. | Wuyun Q et al. | — | 2024 | → |
| The function of ethanol in olfactory associative behaviors in Drosophila melanogaster larvae. | Berger M et al. | — | 2023 | → |
| Chloride intracellular channel 4 (CLIC4) expression profile in the mouse medial prefrontal cortex and its regulation by ethanol. | Bogenpohl JW et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| Corazonin Neurons Contribute to Dimorphic Ethanol Sedation Sensitivity in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>. | Oyeyinka A et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| Identification of additional dye tracers for measuring solid food intake and food preference via consumption-excretion in Drosophila. | Shell BC et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| Expansion and application of dye tracers for measuring solid food intake and food preference in Drosophila. | Shell BC et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Mutants of the <i>white</i> ABCG Transporter in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> Have Deficient Olfactory Learning and Cholesterol Homeostasis. | Myers JL et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Serotoninergic Modulation of Phototactic Variability Underpins a Bet-Hedging Strategy in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>. | Krams IA et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Transcriptome analysis of chloride intracellular channel knockdown in Drosophila identifies oxidation-reduction function as possible mechanism of altered sensitivity to ethanol sedation. | Weston RM et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Tyramine synthesis, vesicular packaging, and the SNARE complex function coordinately in astrocytes to regulate Drosophila alcohol sedation. | Lee KM et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Dietary yeast influences ethanol sedation in Drosophila via serotonergic neuron function. | Schmitt RE et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| Flying Together: <i>Drosophila</i> as a Tool to Understand the Genetics of Human Alcoholism. | Lathen DR et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| Functional divergence of white genes in Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata revealed by RNA interference. | Xu P et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| Investigating Alcohol Behavior and Physiology Using Drosophila melanogaster. | De Nobrega AK et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| Pharmacological targeting of the GABA<sub>B</sub> receptor alters Drosophila's behavioural responses to alcohol. | Ranson DC et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| Alcohol sedation in adult <i>Drosophila</i> is regulated by <i>Cysteine proteinase-1</i> in cortex glia. | Lee KM et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| Automated real-time quantification of group locomotor activity in Drosophila melanogaster. | Scaplen KM et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| Convergent Evidence From Humans and Drosophila melanogaster Implicates the Transcription Factor MEF2B/Mef2 in Alcohol Sensitivity. | Schmitt RE et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of the eye pigmentation gene white leads to alterations in colour of head spots in the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis. | Bai X et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| G-protein αq gene expression plays a role in alcohol tolerance in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>. | Aleyakpo B et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| Biogenesis of zinc storage granules in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>. | Tejeda-Guzmán C et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Cross-species molecular dissection across alcohol behavioral domains. | Farris SP et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Genetics and genomics of alcohol responses in Drosophila. | Park A et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| Genomewide Association Study of Alcohol Dependence Identifies Risk Loci Altering Ethanol-Response Behaviors in Model Organisms. | Adkins AE et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| <i>Drosophila melanogaster White</i> Mutant <i>w</i><sup><i>1118</i></sup> Undergo Retinal Degeneration. | Ferreiro MJ et al. | — | 2017 | → |
| An inexpensive, scalable behavioral assay for measuring ethanol sedation sensitivity and rapid tolerance in Drosophila. | Sandhu S et al. | — | 2015 | → |
| Drosophila and Caenorhabditis elegans as Discovery Platforms for Genes Involved in Human Alcohol Use Disorder. | Grotewiel M et al. | — | 2015 | → |