| Literature DB >> 32228671 |
Stuart J Macdonald1,2, Chad A Highfill3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Segregating genetic variants contribute to the response to toxic, xenobiotic compounds, and identifying these causative sites can help describe the mechanisms underlying metabolism of toxic compounds. In previous work we implicated the detoxification gene Ugt86Dd in the genetic control of larval nicotine resistance in Drosophila melanogaster. Furthermore, we suggested that a naturally-occurring 22-bp deletion that leads to a stop codon in exon 2 of the gene markedly reduces resistance. Here we use homology directed CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing to specifically test this hypothesis.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR; DSPR; Drosophila; Nicotine; QTL; Ugt35C1; Ugt86Dd
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32228671 PMCID: PMC7106894 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-020-05035-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1Sequences of tested Ugt86Dd alleles. The top panel shows a fraction of exon 2 from the gene. The leftmost “T” (rightmost “C”) corresponds to position 3R: 11127665 (3R: 11127626) in Release 6 of the D. melanogaster reference genome. The bottom panel shows the predicted polypeptide sequences resulting from strains containing deletions. The “TAC” codon results in the “Y” amino acid (both highlighted in yellow). A3 and A4 are inbred, but wild-derived, strains [3]. A4-Ugt86Dd, A4-Ugt86Dd, and A4-Ugt86Dd were generated by Highfill et al. [6]. Four versions of A4-Ugt86Dd (13H, 17B, 23C, and 26I) are identical for this region of the genome, and are new to the present study
Summary of nicotine resistance phenotypes
| Genotype | InDel status | Larval assay | Embryo assay | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diff (N − C)a | Cc | Nc | Dev. delay (d)d | ||||
| A4 | Ins | 0.01 | 0.908 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.159 | 0.24 |
| A4- | Ins | − 0.07 | 0.230 | 0.77 | 0.83 | 0.100 | 0.26 |
| A4- | 1-bp Del | − 0.15 | 0.071 | 0.67 | 0.53 | 0.007 | 1.26 |
| A4- | 11-bp Del | − 0.25 | 0.001* | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.467 | 0.97 |
| A4- | 22-bp Del | − 0.23 | < 0.001* | 0.69 | 0.53 | < 0.001* | 1.24 |
| A4- | 22-bp Del | − 0.18 | 0.003* | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.009 | 1.41 |
| A4- | 22-bp Del | − 0.23 | < 0.001* | 0.56 | 0.45 | 0.092 | 1.49 |
| A4- | 22-bp Del | − 0.22 | 0.014 | 0.61 | 0.47 | 0.002* | 1.62 |
| A3 | 22-bp Del | − 0.79 | < 0.001* | 0.39 | 0.02 | < 0.001* | 3.83 |
aThe difference between the fraction of adults emerging from nicotine (N) vials minus the fraction emerging from control (C) vials. Negative values imply that adult emergence is lower in the presence of nicotine. Also see Fig. 2
bThe result of genotype-by-genotype Welch’s two sample t-tests comparing the per-vial fraction of adults emerging in nicotine and control treatments. Those p-values marked with an * are significant following a per-assay Bonferroni correction for multiple tests (i.e., 0.05/9)
cThe fraction of adults emerging from embryos in control (C) vials or nicotine (N) vials
dThe difference (in days, d) between the average emergence day of adults on nicotine media and that on control media. All values are positive, implying that development time is longer under nicotine conditions. All genotypes showed a significant developmental delay on nicotine media (Welch’s t-tests, p < 0.001)
Fig. 2Larval resistance to nicotine is impacted by deletions in Ugt86Dd. Each strain was tested in both control (C) and nicotine (N) treatments. The fraction of adults emerging from each replicate vial is shown by asterisk and cross symbols, while the genotype/treatment means (± 1-SD) are shown by colored whiskers. Nicotine viability is lower than control viability for all strains with a deletion in Ugt86Dd (red and blue whiskers; see Table 1)