Training 1
Training 1
More than a century ago the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster was introduced as the invertebrate
model organism that founded the field of classical genetics. It has been argued that Drosophila, as
an omnipresent follower of human culture, was easy to obtain and maintain in laboratories, and that
it was kept in many laboratories as a cheap model for student projects suitable in times of neo-
Darwinism (the study of Darwinian evolution with Mendelian genetics) [1]. Several laboratories
started using the fly for their main research, but it was the serendipitous discovery of the white
mutation and recognition of its linkage to the X chromosome in 1910 by T.H. Morgan which kick-
started the systematic use of the fly for genetic research, essentially fuelled by Morgan's graduate
2
students Sturtevant and Bridges [1,7] . Building on the sophisticated fly genetics gained during the
early decades, research during the second half of the 20th century gradually turned flies into a
powerful "boundary object" linking genetics to other biological disciplines [10]. Thus, fly genetics
was systematically applied to the study of development, physiology and behaviour, generating new
understanding of the principal genetic and molecular mechanisms underpinning biology, many
being conserved with higher animals and humans [7,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Notably, it has been
estimated that “...about 75% of known human disease genes have a recognisable match in the
genome of fruit flies” [17]. Therefore, besides remaining a powerhouse for unravelling concepts and
fundamental understanding of basic biology, Drosophila is nowadays often used as a “test tube” to
screen for genetic components of disease-relevant processes or pathways, or to unravel their
cellular and molecular mechanisms, covering a wide range of disease mechanisms including
3
neurodegeneration and even neurotoxicology [18,19,20,21] . It is therefore not surprising that
Drosophila is the insect behind six Nobel laureates (Box 1).
Drosophila's enormous success originates from the numerous practical advantages this tiny insect
and the community of fly researchers have to offer to the experimenter. The most important
advantages are briefly listed below:
1
Updated versions of this document can be downloaded @ dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.106631
2
Dan Lindley (2008) Drosophila genetics - The first 25 years @ hstalks.com/?t=BL0341788
3
Informative lay descriptions of fly research can be found on the Wellcome Trust Blog:
The portrait of a fly (Part 1) - wellcometrust.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/feature-the-portrait-of-a-fly-part-1/
The portrait of a fly (Part 2) - wellcometrust.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/the-portrait-of-a-fly-part-2-fly-on-the-wall/
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 2
Fruit flies are easy and cheap to keep. High numbers of different fly stocks can be kept in a
handful of laboratory trays, thus facilitating high-throughput experiments and stock
management (section 3).
A fruit fly generation takes about 10 days (Fig.1), thus fly research progresses rapidly.
Pedigrees over several generations can be easily planned and carried out in a few months.
The fly genome is of low redundancy, i.e. only one or very few genes code for members of the
same protein class. In contrast, higher organisms usually have several paralogous genes
coding for closely related proteins that tend to display functional redundancy and complicate
loss-of-function analyses.
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 3
A particular strength of Drosophila is the possibility to perform unbiased screens for genes
that regulate or mediate biological processes of interest, often referred to as forward genetics
(Fig. 2; Box 2). Highly efficient and versatile strategies have been developed that can be
adapted to the experimenter's needs [23,24,25,26,27].
Virtually every gene of Drosophila is amenable to targeted manipulations through a wide
range of available genetic strategies and tools, ideal to perform reverse genetics (Box 2)
1
[5,28,29,30,31,32,33,34] .
Experimental manipulations and observations of cells and tissues are relatively easy. Thus,
organs are of low complexity and size, and can often be studied live or via straightforward
fixation and staining protocols in the whole organism. These experiments are usually not
subject to legal requirements or formal procedures.
More than a century of fly work has produced a huge body of knowledge and a rich resource
of genetic tools. Well organised databases and stock centres provide easy access to both
knowledge and genetic tools [36,37]. Furthermore, the highly collaborative spirit of the fly
community that has prevailed since the early days of fly research [1], enormously facilitates
research through generous exchange of materials and information.
Box 2. Concepts for genetic research: LOF versus GOF, forward versus reverse genetics
Two principal classes of manipulation are usually employed to study gene function. LOSS-OF-
FUNCTION (LOF) approaches attempt to eliminate gene function partially or completely, for example by
employing LOF mutant alleles (section 4.1.2), knock-down of genes using RNA interference strategies
(section 5.2e), the targeted expression of dominant-negative constructs (e.g. catalytically dead versions
of enzymes titrating out the function of the endogenous healthy enzyme), or transgenic expression of
single-domain antibodies [4]. GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) approaches attempt to obtain functional
information by creating conditions where the gene is excessively or ectopically expressed or its function
exaggerated. This can be achieved through targeted over-expression of genes, either of their wild type
alleles or of constitutive active versions (section 5), or through the use of GOF mutant alleles (section
4.1.2).
Gene manipulations are generally employed to serve two principal strategies. FORWARD
GENETICS is the approach to identify the gene(s) that are responsible for a particular biological process
or function in an organism. In Drosophila this is usually performed through using unbiased large-scale
LOF or GOF screens to identify genes that can disturb the process/function in question (Fig. 2).
REVERSE GENETICS is the approach to unravel the functions behind specific genes of interest, for
example when trying to understand molecular mechanisms or functions of genes known to cause human
disease (using the fly as a "test tube"). For this, LOF or GOF approaches are employed, using mutant
alleles or genetic tools that are often readily available or can be generated. The generation of transgenic
tools is daily routine in most fly laboratories (section 5.1). Also manipulations of genes in situ, i.e. in their
chromosomal location, can be achieved through various strategies, such as
classical mutagenesis strategies to generate candidate alleles that are then selected over suitable
deficiencies uncovering the targeted gene locus (section 6c)
generation of targeted deletions at the gene locus through mobilising local P-elements (section 5.1)
targeted manipulations of the gene locus through genomic engineering using recombinase-based
strategies [9] or TALEN strategies (transcription activator-like effector nuclease) [16]
1
for overviews of Drosophila genetics see http://www.scribd.com/doc/6125010/Drosophila-as-a-Model-Organism and [35]
(http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007352526x/student_view0/genetic_portrait_chapters_a-e.html)
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 4
For example, you investigate a certain gene called Mef2. You have isolated a candidate
mutation in this gene which, when present in two copies in embryos, correlates with aberrant
muscle development. You hypothesise that this phenotype is caused by loss of Mef2 function. A
standard approach to prove this hypothesis is to carry out "rescue experiments" by adding back a
wild type copy of the gene into the mutant background, analogous to gene therapy. For this, you will
need to clone the Mef2 gene and generate transgenic fly lines for the targeted expression of Mef2
(section 5.1). To perform the actual experiment, you now need to bring the Mef2 transgenic
construct into Mef2 mutant individuals. This last step requires classical genetic crosses and the
careful design of genetic mating schemes.
These mating schemes are a key prerequisite for successful Drosophila research. The rules
underpinning these schemes are simple. Yet, they often require thinking ahead for several
generations, comparable to planning your moves during a game of chess. To enable you to design
such mating schemes, this manual will provide you with the key rules of the game and explain the
main parameters that need to be considered.
1
detailed stock-keeping instructions: flystocks.bio.indiana.edu/Fly_Work/culturing.htm
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 5
Stock keeping is usually done at 18°C (generation time of about 1 month). Be aware that you
deal with live animals that need to be cared for like pets! It is good practice to keep one young
and one two week older vial of each stock. Every fortnight, freshly hatched flies from the month
old vial are flipped into a fresh vial, whilst the two-week old vial should have produced larvae
and serves as a back-up. Such a routine allows you to spot any problems on time, such as
infections (mites, mould, bacteria, viral infections) [3], the need to add water (if the food is too
dry) or to reduce humidity (if vials are too moist).
1
Incubators need to be fly-proof: copper is aggressively corroded in the presence of flies and either needs to be well
protected (e.g. coated with resin) or should be avoided and replaced by stainless steel.
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 6
Experiments with flies tend to take place at room temperature or at certain conventional
temperatures, such as 25°C for well timed experiments (Fig. 1) or 29°C to speed up
development or enhance targeted gene expression with the Gal4/UAS system (section 5.2).
To perform crosses, females and males that carry the appropriate genotypes are carefully
selected. Some aspects need consideration:
Males and females need to be distinguished using the criteria explained in Figure 4.
Selected females have to be virgin, i.e. selected before they are randomly fertilised by sibling
males in their vial of origin. To select virgins, choose vials containing many dark mature pupae
from which adult flies are expected to eclose. To start the selection procedure, discard all flies
from the vial and thoroughly check that all eclosed flies (including those that transiently stick to
the food or walls) have been removed or otherwise eliminated. The key rationale of this
procedure is that freshly eclosed males remain sterile for a period of several hours and will not
court females. Hence, after clearing vials, all females eclosed within this period will be virgin.
This period lasts for 5-8 hrs at 25°C, about double the time at 18°C, and considerably longer at
even lower temperatures (we use 11°C to maintain crosses up to two days for subsequent virgin
collection). Therefore, a typical routine for virgin collection is to keep vials at low temperatures
overnight (ideally below 18°C) and harvest virgins first thing in the morning. During the day,
they are kept at higher temperatures (to enhance the yield) and harvested again around
lunchtime and early evening, before moving them back to lower temperature for the night.
Flies have to be selected for the right phenotypic markers. When designing a mating
scheme, combinations of markers need to be wisely chosen so that the correct genotypes of
both sexes can be unequivocally recognised at each step of the mating scheme (often from
parallel crosses). Genetic markers will be explained in section 4.2., and the rules how to choose
them will become clear from later sections.
To select them for gender and phenotypic markers, freshly eclosed flies are tipped from their vial
onto a porous pad dispensing CO2. CO2 acts as a narcotic and is not harmful if exposure is kept to a
few minutes. Flies can be easily inspected on this pad under a dissection microscope (Fig. 3C-E).
Selected flies are added to fresh standard vials properly labelled with gender and genotype (Fig.
3B) and kept at standard temperature (room temperature or 25°C). Remaining flies are disposed of
in a fly morgue (usually a bottle containing 70% alcohol) and never returned to their vials of origin.
Some further considerations are explained in the box "Tip 2"
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 7
In general, more female flies are used in a cross than male flies, with two thirds being
female as a reasonable approximation (unless males are expected to be of low fitness due to the
mutations they carry). Also, if gender choice is an option and one of the stocks/genotypes to be
used is morbid, choose the more vital stock/genotype for virgin collection. In general, consider that
di- and trihybrid crosses (see example in Fig. 6) and crosses with mutant combinations that affect
viability will have a very low yield of the required offspring and have to be initiated by large volume
crosses. Consequently, expect that the volume of flies available for crosses in a complex mating
scheme may gradually reduce from generation to generation. Also be aware that certain genotypes
may cause flies to eclose later or earlier than others. For example, males carrying the balancer
chromosome FM7 in hemizygosis (over a Y chromosome) may eclose days after their female
siblings carrying the same balancer in heterozygosis (over an X chromosome; see Fig. 10). Finally,
fly strains may be carrying bacterial or viral diseases or they can be infected with fungi or mites [3].
These conditions can pose a threat to the feasibility of mating schemes. The best prophylaxis is
careful and regular husbandry of your fly stocks.
Especially in complex mating schemes with complex marker combinations, a safe way of
selecting the right animals for your next cross is to merely separate males from females into distinct
vials during your daily routine. Only when enough animals have been collected, perform the marker
selection in one single session. This mode is safer and less time-consuming, especially for the
inexperienced fly pusher or when various crosses are running in parallel and keeping an overview
becomes a challenge.
1
4.1.2. Alleles
Genes exist in different alleles. Most loss-of-function mutant alleles (hypo- or amorphic/null) are
recessive. Their phenotypes are not expressed in heterozygous (-/+) but only in homozygous
animals (-/-), i.e. the wildtype allele mostly compensates for the functional loss of one gene copy
(see w, vg or e in Fig. 6). Loss-of-function mutant alleles can also be dominant. For example,
phenotypes are observed in animals heterozygous for Ultrabithorax (Ubx/+), Polycomb (Pc/+), or
Notch (N/+) loss-of-function alleles, i.e. the wildtype allele is insufficient to compensate for loss of
one functional gene copy (haplo-insufficiency). Dominant alleles can also be gain-of-function,
usually caused by over-expression of a gene product (hypermorph or "dominant negative"
antimorph) or by ectopic expression or activation of a gene product, potentially conveying novel
gene functions (neomorph). For example, BarH1 over-expression in the eye causes kidney-shaped
eyes in Bar1/+ individuals (Fig. 6) [41], ectopic Antp expression in antennae the antenna-to-leg
transformations in Antp73b/+ (Fig. 9) [42], and Krüppel mis-expression the reduced eyes in If1/+
animals (Fig. 9) [43]. Dominant alleles may display intermediate inheritance showing a stepwise
increase in phenotype strength from heterozygous to homozygous animals. Thus, the eyes of
heterozygous flies (B1/+) are kidney-shaped, whereas they display a stronger slit-shaped phenotype
in homo- (B/B) or hemizygous (B/Y) flies (Fig. 6). Animals carrying the loss-of-function mutant allele
abd-AMX1 in heterozygosis are viable and show a weak dominant cell proliferation phenotype,
whereas homozygous animals are lethal and show a strong cell proliferation phenotype [8]. Note,
that the phenotype distribution in pedigrees involving dominant mutant alleles differs from those
with recessive mutant alleles (Fig. 6). Also note that the existence of dominant and recessive alleles
has impacted on gene names (capitalisation of the first letter), which can be confusing or even
misleading (Box 4).
Figure 6. Independent assortment of alleles & comparison of recessive and dominant inheritance
Two examples of crosses between heterozygous parents (P) involving recessive alleles (top left) and a
dominant allele (green box top right) are shown. Homologous alleles are separated by a horizontal line;
maternal alleles are shown in black, paternal ones in blue. Mutant alleles are w (white; white eyes), vg
(vestigial; reduced wings), B (Bar; reduced eyes); phenotypes are indicated by fly diagrams (compare Fig.
9). When comparing inheritance of the eye marker mutations w (left) and B (right), it becomes apparent
that the allele assortments are identical, yet only the heterozygous B mutant females show an intermediate
eye phenotype.
The left example is a dihybrid cross involving mutant alleles on X and 2nd chromosomes (separated
by semicolons). In the first offspring/filial generation (F1) each chromosome has undergone independent
assortment of alleles (demarcated by curly brackets) and each of the four possible outcomes per
chromosome can be combined with any of the outcomes of the other two chromosomes resulting in 4 x 4 =
16 combinations. In case of two autosomal genes, the phenotypic distribution would be 9:3:3:1
(homogeneously coloured fields in the Punnett square), as compared to 3:1 in a monohybrid cross (only
one of 4 animals displays vg phenotype). However, since w is X-chromosomal, the phenotypic distribution
here is 6:6:2:2 (indicated by hatched fields in Punnett square). The Punnett square lists all possible
combinations (symbols explained on the right); red and blue stippled boxes show the same examples of
two possible offspring in both the curly bracket scheme and the Punnett square. Note that the Punnett
square reflects the numerical outcome of this cross in its full complexity, whereas the curly bracket strategy
only qualitatively reflects potential combinations and is easier to interpret for the purpose of mating scheme
design (Box 5). The complexity of Punnett squares become even more obvious when dealing with trihybrid
crosses (Appendix 2).
Recombination frequencies have been used to generate spatial chromosomal maps of gene loci
(recombination maps), defining 1% chance of crossing-over between two loci as 1 map unit (or
centimorgan, cM) [2]. 50% is the maximum detectable crossing-over frequency because crossing-
over is happening at the 4-strand stage; only 2 strands are involved in any one event and exchange
between sister chromatids produces no observable changes. If two genes are 50 cMs apart then
they are equivalent to being unlinked (due to the increase in multiple crossing-over events occurring
between them). If the location of two loci is known relative to the cytogenetic map, their position on
the recombination map can be roughly estimated and the recombination frequency between them
deduced (Fig. 7B and bottom of Box 4).
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
1
for an easy guide to FlyBase see: http://flybase.org/static_pages/docs/pubs/FlyBase_workshop_2009.pdf
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 12
1
or download the poster "Learning to Fly":
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291526-968X/homepage/free_posters.htm
2
available on FlyBase at the bottom of "Summary Information" for genes that were listed in the book
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 14
gene function). On the other hand these mutations provide important markers to be used during
genetic crosses and, hence, for mating scheme design. A few marker mutations commonly used for
fly work are illustrated in Fig. 9.
chromosomes can be excluded. The following balancer chromosomes are commonly used (for
mentioned markers refer to Fig. 9; also see Tip 3):
a. FM7a (1st multiply-inverted 7a) - X chromosome
typical markers: y, wa, sn, B1
b. FM7c (1st multiply-marked 7c) – X chromosome
typical markers: y, sc, w, oc, ptg, B1
c. CyO (Curly derivative of Oster) - 2nd chromosome
typical markers: Cy (Curly), dp (dumpy; bumpy notum), pr (purple; eye colour), cn2 (cinnabar;
eye colour)
d. SM6a (2nd multiply-inverted 6a) – 2nd chromosome
typical markers: al, Cy, dp, cn, sp
e. TM3 (3rd multiply-inverted 3) - 3rd chromosome
typical markers: Sb, Ubx bx-34e, (bithorax; larger halteres) e, Ser
f. TM6B (3rd multiply-inverted 6B) - 3rd chromosome
frequent markers: AntpHu, e, Tb (Tubby; physically shortened 3rd instar larvae and pupae)
Note that the 4th chromosome does not require balancers since it does not display recombination.
Instead the ciD mutant allele is used to maintain stocks with lethal/sterile mutations of genes on the
4th chromosome; ciD is a recessive lethal, dominant marker mutation caused by a chromosome
rearrangement that led to a fusion protein encoded by the cubitus interruptus and pan genes.
5. Transgenic flies
5.1. Generating transgenic fly lines
Transgenic flies have become a hub of Drosophila genetics with many important applications (see
below). Accordingly, transgenic animals are omnipresent in mating schemes, and it is important to
understand their principal nature and some of their applications. The generation of transgenic fly
lines is based on the use of transposable elements/transposons. Transposable elements are
virus-like DNA fragments that insert into the genome where they are replicated like endogenous
genes and can therefore be maintained in that position over many generations. Natural transposons
encode specialised enzymes called transposases. Transposases catalyse mobilisation of the
transposons into other genomic locations either through excision/re-integration or through
replication (Fig.12A). In Drosophila, the most frequently used class of transposon is the P-element
which will be mainly dealt with in this manual. For the purpose of transgenesis, transposons are
modified genetically. The transposase gene is removed and replaced by those genes the
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 16
experimenter wants to introduce into the fly genome. Furthermore, they contain marker genes and
genes/motifs for the selective cloning of the P-element in bacteria (Fig. 12B).
To introduce purpose-tailored transposons into the fly genome, they are injected into the
posterior pole of early embryos where they are incorporated into newly forming pole cells (Fig. 12)
[48]. Pole cells are the precursors of sperm and egg cells that will then give rise to a certain
percentage of transgenic offspring. To catalyse the insertion of these P-elements in the pole cell
genome, transposase-encoding helper elements are co-injected with them (or transgenic fly lines
are used that display targeted expression of transposase specifically in the germline). Helper
elements can themselves not insert/replicate and will gradually disappear when pole cells and their
progeny proliferate (Fig. 12D). Through this disappearance of the enzymatic activity, successful P-
element insertions are stabilised and can be maintained as stocks. Generating transgenic fly lines
through transposon/helper element injection requires technical expertise and specialised equipment
such as micromanipulators and glass needle pullers. It is often considered more economical to
outsource this task to specialised companies (of which there are a number existing worldwide),
instead of establishing and maintaining this capacity in individual laboratories.
Existing P-element insertions can be mobilised to produce excisions and transpositions into
new chromosomal locations. For this, a stock carrying the stable transposase-encoding insertion
P{∆2-3} is crossed with P-element-carrying flies to induce transposition. In the next generation,
P{∆2-3} is crossed out again to stabilise any newly generated P-element insertions [26]. P-element
mobilisation is used for a number of reasons. For example, random P-element insertions into genes
can disrupt their functions and provide new mutant alleles for these genes (P-element
mutagenesis) [26]. In other approaches, reporter genes on P-elements (e.g. lacZ, Gal4 or GFP)
are used to interrogate the genome for gene expression patterns (enhancer/gene/protein trap
screens; details in section 5.2.). Mobilisation of mapped P-element insertions can also be used to
induce deletions at their insertion sites. This can occur through a process called imprecise
excision where the P-element may remove genetic material either side of the insertion site.
Deletions can also be generated through homologous recombination, a strategy that removes the
genomic sequence between two adjacent P-element insertions [30]. For these latter approaches,
several transposable element insertions for most gene loci are readily available, which are carefully
listed in FlyBase and the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project (BDGP) [49].
A number of problems with P-elements have been identified and led to improved strategies.
For example, P-elements have size limitations for the DNA inserts they can successfully insert into
the fly genome. Fragment sizes can be significantly increased through the use of BAC (Bacterial
Artificial Chromosome) technology, which allows whole genomic loci of greater than 100 kb to be
used for transgenesis [5,50]. Another problem is the so called position effect, which results in
identical P-element constructs having different levels of expression according to their genomic
insertion sites. Such position effects are due to the fact that each genomic locus displays its
individual transcriptional base-level and degree of chromosomal condensation. This problem can be
circumvented by using site-directed integration of transposons into known genomic positions. For
example, ΦC31 integrase (as an alternative to the P-transposase) promotes recombination
between attP and attB motifs. Consequently, when attB-bearing transposons are injected into
ΦC31-expressing fly strains carrying attP sites at defined genomic locations, a high percentage of
transposons will insert only at the defined attP site [51]. ΦC31-mediated recombination can also be
used to engineer genes or genomic regions within their natural chromosomal location (genomic
engineering) [9]. Finally, P-elements display a pronounced non-random insertion spectrum
(insertion hot & cold spots), meaning that certain classes of transposons are biased to insert in
certain regions of the genome avoiding others, or show preferential insertion in 5' regulatory rather
than coding regions of genes. This can be advantageous in some cases, but primarily poses a
problem in particular for genome-wide genetic screens (Fig. 2). To circumvent this problem and
complement existing P-element collections, a number of alternative vectors with different or less
pronounced preferences are available, such as the lepidopteran piggyBac or the Minos transposon
[26,49].
mutagenesis screens (see Fig. 2) [26]. Once P-induced insertions have been generated,
lacZ staining patterns may reveal when and where the gene is active (Fig. 13 B), and efficient
cloning strategies can be used to map the insertion and identify the targeted gene (Fig. 12 B).
Transposon-based screens have been carried out with various technical modifications. For
example, protein trap screens select for insertions of specifically engineered transposons
into introns of genes (within or next to their coding regions). These transposons carry
sequences coding for protein tags (e.g. GFP) flanked by splice acceptor and donor sites.
During the natural splicing of the host gene, this tag sequence gets incorporated into the
splice product, thus fusing the tag to the endogenous protein. Many protein trap lines are
listed in FlyBase displaying fluorescent versions of endogenous proteins, allowing their natural
expression and localisation patterns to be studied [34,53].
c. Gal4/UAS lines: Gal4 is a transcription factor from yeast that activates genes downstream of
UAS (upstream activating sequence) enhancer elements. Gal4 does not exist endogenously
in flies and does not act on any endogenous loci in the fly genome. Very many transgenic
Gal4 fly lines have been and are still being generated. To illustrate this point, the simple
search term "Gal4" produces almost 6000 hits representing individual fly stocks at the
Bloomington Stock Centre alone. Of these, numerous Gal4 lines are readily available that
display Gal4 expression in different tissues or cells at specific developmental stages (Fig. 14
a, b). By simply crossing Gal4-expressing flies to UAS construct lines (Fig. 14 c, d) or
enhancer-promoter (EP) lines [54] (Fig. 14 e), the genes downstream of UAS enhancers are
being activated. UAS-linked genes can be of very different nature including reporters, different
isoforms of fly genes (or of other species), optogenetic or physiological tools, small interfering
RNAs or cytotoxins (Box 3). Once crossed to a Gal4 line, the offspring will display expression
of these UAS-coupled genes in the chosen Gal4 pattern. This provides an impressively
versatile and powerful system for experimentation, the spatiotemporal pattern of which can be
further refined through technical improvements such as the use of Gal80 (a Gal4 repressor),
dual binary systems or Split Gal4 [29].
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 20
Figure 14. The versatile Gal4/UAS system for targeted gene expression
The Gal4/UAS system is a two component system where flies carrying Gal4-expressing constructs are
crossed to flies carrying UAS-constructs (inset). Gal4 (black knotted line) binds and activates UAS
enhancers (dotted-stippled lines), so that the pattern in which Gal4 is expressed (here ubiquitously in the
fly) will determine the expression pattern of any genes downstream of the UAS enhancer (here ßGal or
Ubx). The two components can be freely combined providing a versatile system of targeted gene
expression. For example, Gal4-expressing constructs can be enhancer construct lines (a) or enhancer
trap lines (b). The shown Gal4 lines are analogous to those in Fig. 12 with some modifications: these P-
elements carry Gal4 instead of lacZ, the enhancer trap line is inserted into the ubiquitously expressed
Act42A actin gene at cytogenetic map position 42A, and the enhancer element is the Act42A enhancer
(actin-E) activating expression of Gal4 ubiquitously in the fly (black). Three examples of UAS lines are
shown: c) P{UAS-lacZ,w+} carries a UAS enhancer in front of the lacZ reporter gene; d) P{UAS-Ubx,w+}
carries the UAS enhancer in front of the Ubx gene; e) P{EP,w+}Ubx is an enhancer-promoter (EP) line
with a random insertion into the Ubx locus at 89D (analogous to enhancer trap line in Fig. 12 A). P-
elements of EP lines carry an UAS enhancer plus basal promoter which, on Gal4 binding, jointly activate
genes that lie downstream of their random insertion sites (here the Ubx gene).
d. FRT lines: FRT (FLP recognition target) sites are specifically targeted by the yeast FLP
recombinase ("flippase"). The FLP/FRT system is widely used in Drosophila as an inducible
recombination system that has mostly replaced former X-ray based strategies [31,55]. It is
used to excise genetic material (to activate/inactivate genes or markers) or to cause
somatic recombination between homologous chromosomes, an event that would normally
only occur during meiosis (Fig. 7). Somatic recombination requires specific insertions of FRT-
bearing P-elements close to the centromere of both homologous chromosomes. At these FRT
sites, FLP will catalyse breakage and exchange of the homologous chromosome arms which
can distribute into different cells in subsequent cell divisions. When starting from heterozygous
individuals, this method can produce mosaic tissues with homozygous clones of cells
surrounded by heterozygous cells [31]. Somatic recombination is used for MARCM (Mosaic
Analysis with a Repressible Cell Marker) analysis studying the behaviour of single mutant
cells or cell groups in normal or mutant tissue [56] (Fig. 15). Another important application is
the generation of germline clones in female gonads (Fig. 16). Germline clones are an
efficient strategy to generate maternally mutant embryos, i.e. to circumvent the problem of
maternal product [57]. Thus, mothers heterozygous for a homozygous lethal/sterile mutation
may deposit maternal product, consisting in mRNAs and/or proteins of their healthy gene
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 21
copy, in oocytes. Perdurance of his maternal product into embryonic or even postembryonic
stages may mask mutant phenotypes of homozygous mutant (zygotic mutant) offspring,
posing a problem for mutant analyses. Through using the antimorphic, dominant female sterile
ovoD1 or ovoD2 alleles, germline clone analyses positively select for successful recombination
events and have become highly efficient [57].
e. RNAi lines: Application of RNA interference strategies in flies has become a powerful
alternative to the use of mutant alleles. As one key advantage, fly lines carrying UAS-RNAi
constructs (available for virtually every gene) [32] allow the targeted knock-down of specific
genes in a reproducible tissue or set of cells, often at distinct stages of development. Like
analyses using mutant clones (section 5.2d), this approach can therefore overcome problems
caused by systemic loss of gene function, such as early lethality (often impeding analyses at
postembryonic stages) or complex aberrations of whole tissues that can be difficult to
interpret. However, the use of RNAi lines needs to be well controlled. Demonstration of
reduced protein or RNA levels of the targeted gene is not sufficient, since phenotypes can still
be due to addtitional off-target effects (i.e. knock-down of independent gene functions).
Therefore, it is advised to use more than one independent RNAi line targeting different regions
of the gene. Other proof of specificity can come from enhancement of the knock-down
phenotype in the presence of one mutant copy of the targeted gene or, vice versa,
suppression of the knock-down phenotype through co-expression of a rescue construct for the
targeted gene (ideally carrying a mutation that does not affect its function but makes it
immune to the knock-down construct).
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 22
in FlyBase. Using improved technology the Bloomington Deficiency Kit now covers 98.4% of
the euchromatic genome [61]. These deficiencies provide a rich resource to map genes
through classical complementation testing. For this, you cross your mutant to deficiencies of
the region determined by meiotic mapping. If your mutation crossed to the deficiency
displays its known phenotype (e.g. lethality) you can infer that the gene of interest is
uncovered by this deficiency (hemizygous constellation). Note that, when dealing with
lethal mutations, only 25% of your offspring are expected to carry the phenotype, so you
look for presence/absence of balancer-free animals in F1 (Fig. 6). Absence of the phenotype
excludes the group of genes uncovered by the deficiency. By using various deficiencies in
the area, the mapping of the gene can be further refined (Fig. 18).
d. Complementation tests with known loss-of-function mutant alleles: Once the location of your
gene has been narrowed down by deletion mapping, you can cross your mutation to
available loss-of-function mutations for the genes in this area, basically following the same
strategy as for deletion mapping. Presence of the phenotype indicates that the mutations
are alleles of the same gene (hetero-allelic constellation). Absence of the phenotype
suggests that these alleles belong to different genes (trans-heterozygous constellation).
However, be aware that the nature of a gene may be complex and lead to false
interpretations of your complementation analysis:
Genes may display transvection, a phenomenon where different homozygous mutant
alleles affecting different areas of the same gene may complement each other [62].
Genes can be nested, i.e. complete genes can be lying within introns of another gene,
or they may map to the complementary strand of DNA at the same locus.
Coding regions of genes may be separate, but they may share the same enhancers.
Finally, non-coding RNAs are encoded by independent loci that may often be
considered to represent genes themselves. These loci have important gene regulatory
1
functions and can complicate the analyses of other genes in their vicinity .
To circumvent some of these problems, other strategies are available. For example,
collections of UAS-RNAi fly lines (section 5.2e) can be used to systematically knock down
the functions of genes in the area of interest. This strategy only works if your mutation has
phenotypes characteristic enough to be unequivocally identifiable upon gene knock-down.
Furthermore, important clarification can often be obtained from the detailed transcriptional
profiles displayed for every gene on FlyBase (at the bottom of the "Expression/Regulation"
view in GBrowse).
7. Concluding remarks
You should now have gained the key knowledge and terminology required to design mating
schemes for Drosophila and to function in a fly laboratory. However, the information given is still
1
nice example: http://biobabel.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/a-dual-purpose-rna-and-hox-regulation/
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 25
basic and requires that you further explore the details behind the various aspects mentioned here.
For this, some literature has been provided throughout the text. Should there be mistakes,
passages that are hard to understand or information that is missing or wrong, please, be so kind to
let me know ([email protected]).
9. References
1. Kohler RE (1994) Lords of the fly. Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. Chicago, London: The
University of Chicago Press. 321 p.
2. Greenspan RJ (2004) Fly pushing: The theory and practice of Drosophila genetics. Cold Spring Harbor
New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. 183 p.
3. Ashburner M, Golic KG, Hawley RS (2005) Drosophila: a laboratory handbook. Cold Spring Harbor, New
York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. 1409 p.
4. Layalle S, Volovitch M, Mugat B, Bonneaud N, Parmentier ML, et al. (2011) Engrailed homeoprotein acts
as a signaling molecule in the developing fly. Development 138: 2315-2323.
5. Venken KJ, Carlson JW, Schulze KL, Pan H, He Y, et al. (2009) Versatile P[acman] BAC libraries for
transgenesis studies in Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Methods 6: 431-434.
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 26
6. Venken KJ, Popodi E, Holtzman SL, Schulze KL, Park S, et al. (2010) A molecularly defined duplication
set for the X chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 186: 1111-1125.
7. Ashburner M (1993) Epilogue. In: Bate M, Martínez Arias A, editors. The development of Drosophila
melanogaster. Cold Spring Harbor: CSH Laboratory Press. pp. 1493-1506.
8. Prokop A, Bray S, Harrison E, Technau GM (1998) Homeotic regulation of segment-specific differences in
neuroblast numbers and proliferation in the Drosophila central nervous system. Mech Dev 74: 99-110.
9. Huang J, Zhou W, Dong W, Watson AM, Hong Y (2009) From the Cover: Directed, efficient, and versatile
modifications of the Drosophila genome by genomic engineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 8284-
8289.
10. Keller EF (1996) Drosophila embryos as transitional objects: the work of Donald Poulson and Christiane
Nusslein-Volhard. Hist Stud Phys Biol Sci 26: 313-346.
11. Bellen HJ, Tong C, Tsuda H (2010) 100 years of Drosophila research and its impact on vertebrate
neuroscience: a history lesson for the future. Nat Rev Neurosci 11: 514-522.
12. Martinez Arias A (2008) Drosophila melanogaster and the development of biology in the 20th century. In:
Dahmann C, editor. Drosophila Methods and Protocols. 2008/07/22 ed: Humana Press. pp. 1-25.
13. Green MM (2010) 2010: A century of Drosophila genetics through the prism of the white gene. Genetics
184: 3-7.
14. Lawrence P (1992) The making of a fly: the genetics of animal design. Oxford: Blackwell Science. 240 p.
15. Weiner J (1999) Time, Love, Memory : A Great Biologist and His Quest for the Origins of Behavior. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf. 320 p.
16. Liu J, Li C, Yu Z, Huang P, Wu H, et al. (2012) Efficient and specific modifications of the Drosophila
genome by means of an easy TALEN strategy. J Genet Genomics 39: 209-215.
17. Reiter LT, Potocki L, Chien S, Gribskov M, Bier E (2001) A systematic analysis of human disease-
associated gene sequences in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Res 11: 1114-1125.
18. Bier E (2005) Drosophila, the golden bug, emerges as a tool for human genetics. Nat Rev Genet 6: 9-23.
19. Hu Y, Flockhart I, Vinayagam A, Bergwitz C, Berger B, et al. (2011) An integrative approach to ortholog
prediction for disease-focused and other functional studies. BMC Bioinformatics 12: 357.
20. Rand MD (2010) Drosophotoxicology: the growing potential for Drosophila in neurotoxicology.
Neurotoxicol Teratol 32: 74-83.
21. Jaiswal M, Sandoval H, Zhang K, Bayat V, Bellen HJ (2012) Probing mechanisms that underlie human
neurodegenerative disease in Drosophila. Annu Rev Genet.
22. Weigmann K, Klapper R, Strasser T, Rickert C, Technau G, et al. (2003) FlyMove - a new way to look at
development of Drosophila. Trends Genet 19: 310-311.
23. St Johnston D (2002) The art and design of genetic screens: Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Rev Genet 3:
176-188.
24. Giacomotto J, Segalat L (2010) High-throughput screening and small animal models, where are we? Br J
Pharmacol 160: 204-216.
25. Bökel C (2008) EMS screens : from mutagenesis to screening and mapping. In: Dahmann C, editor.
Drosophila Methods and Protocols. 2008/07/22 ed: Humana Press. pp. 119-138.
26. Hummel T, Klambt C (2008) P-element mutagenesis. In: Dahmann C, editor. Drosophila Methods and
Protocols. 2008/07/22 ed: Humana Press. pp. 97-117.
27. Steinbrink S, Boutros M (2008) RNAi screening in cultured Drosophila cells. In: Dahmann C, editor.
Drosophila Methods and Protocols. 2008/07/22 ed: Humana Press. pp. 139-153.
28. Venken KJ, Bellen HJ (2005) Emerging technologies for gene manipulation in Drosophila melanogaster.
Nat Rev Genet 6: 167-178.
29. Elliott DA, Brand AH (2008) The GAL4 system: a versatile system for the expression of genes. In:
Dahmann C, editor. Drosophila Methods and Protocols. 2008/07/22 ed: Humana Press. pp. 79-95.
30. Maggert KA, Gong WJ, Golic KG (2008) Methods for homologous recombination in Drosophila. In:
Dahmann C, editor. Drosophila Methods and Protocols. 2008/07/22 ed: Humana Press. pp. 155-174.
31. Bischof J, Basler K (2008) Recombinases and their use in gene activation, gene inactivation, and
transgenesis. In: Dahmann C, editor. Drosophila Methods and Protocols. 2008/07/22 ed: Humana Press.
pp. 175-195.
32. Dietzl G, Chen D, Schnorrer F, Su KC, Barinova Y, et al. (2007) A genome-wide transgenic RNAi library
for conditional gene inactivation in Drosophila. Nature 448: 151-156.
33. Ni JQ, Liu LP, Binari R, Hardy R, Shim HS, et al. (2009) A Drosophila resource of transgenic RNAi lines
for neurogenetics. Genetics 182: 1089-1100.
34. Kelso RJ, Buszczak M, Quinones AT, Castiblanco C, Mazzalupo S, et al. (2004) Flytrap, a database
documenting a GFP protein-trap insertion screen in Drosophila melanogaster. Nucleic Acids Res 32
Database issue: D418--D420.
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 27
35. Hartwell LH, Hood L, Goldberg ML, Reynolds AE, Silver LM (2010) Genetics: From Genes to Genomes
(4th edition): McGraw-Hill.
36. Matthews KA, Kaufman TC, Gelbart WM (2005) Research resources for Drosophila: the expanding
universe. Nat Rev Genet 6: 179-193.
37. Drysdale R (2008) FlyBase: a database for the Drosophila research community. In: Dahmann C, editor.
Drosophila Methods and Protocols. 2008/07/22 ed: Humana Press. pp. 45-59.
38. Ahuja A, Singh RS (2008) Variation and evolution of male sex combs in Drosophila: nature of selection
response and theories of genetic variation for sexual traits. Genetics 179: 503-509.
39. Childress J, Halder G (2008) Appendix: Phenotypic Markers in Drosophila. In: Dahmann C, editor.
Drosophila Methods and Protocols: Humana Press. pp. 27-44.
40. Henderson DS (2004) The chromosomes of Drosophila melanogaster. Methods Mol Biol 247: 1-43.
41. Kojima T, Ishimaru S, Higashijima S, Takayama E, Akimaru H, et al. (1991) Identification of a different-
type homeobox gene, BarH1, possibly causing Bar (B) and Om(1D) mutations in Drosophila. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 88: 4343-4347.
42. Emerald BS, Cohen SM (2004) Spatial and temporal regulation of the homeotic selector gene
Antennapedia is required for the establishment of leg identity in Drosophila. Dev Biol 267: 462-472.
43. Carrera P, Abrell S, Kerber B, Walldorf U, Preiss A, et al. (1998) A modifier screen in the eye reveals
control genes for Krüppel activity in the Drosophila embryo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95: 10779-10784.
44. White-Cooper H (2004) Spermatogenesis - analysis of meiosis and morphogenesis. Methods Mol Biol
247: 45-75.
45. Bridges CB (1936) D.I.S. work sheet no. 1: external structure of Drosophila. Drosophila Information
Service 6: 76.
46. Chyb S, Gompel N (2013) Atlas of Drosophila morphology: wild-type and classical mutants: Academic
Press.
47. Lindsley DL, Zimm GG (1992) The genome of Drosophila melanogaster: Academic Press. 1133 p.
48. Bachmann A, Knust E (2008) The use of P-element transposons to generate transgenic flies. In:
Dahmann C, editor. Drosophila Methods and Protocols. 2008/07/22 ed: Humana Press. pp. 61-77.
49. Bellen HJ, Levis RW, He Y, Carlson JW, Evans-Holm M, et al. (2011) The Drosophila gene disruption
project: progress using transposons with distinctive site specificities. Genetics 188: 731-743.
50. Venken KJ, He Y, Hoskins RA, Bellen HJ (2006) P[acman]: a BAC transgenic platform for targeted
insertion of large DNA fragments in D. melanogaster. Science 314: 1747-1751.
51. Bischof J, Maeda RK, Hediger M, Karch F, Basler K (2007) An optimized transgenesis system for
Drosophila using germ-line-specific varphiC31 integrases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 3312-3317.
52. Bellen HJ, O'Kane CJ, Wilson C, Grossniklaus U, Pearson RK, et al. (1989) P-element-mediated
enhancer detection: a versatile method to study development in Drosophila. Genes Dev 3: 1288-1300.
53. Buszczak M, Paterno S, Lighthouse D, Bachman J, Planck J, et al. (2007) The carnegie protein trap
library: a versatile tool for Drosophila developmental studies. Genetics 175: 1505-1531.
54. Rørth P (1996) A modular misexpression screen in Drosophila detecting tissue-specific phenotypes. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 93: 12418-12422.
55. Theodosiou NA, Xu T (1998) Use of FLP/FRT system to study Drosophila development. Methods 14: 355-
365.
56. Wu JS, Luo L (2006) A protocol for mosaic analysis with a repressible cell marker (MARCM) in
Drosophila. Nat Protoc 1: 2583-2589.
57. Chou TB, Perrimon N (1992) Use of a yeast site-specific recombinase to produce female germline
chimeras in Drosophila. Genetics 131: 643-653.
58. Campos-Ortega JA, Hartenstein V (1997) The embryonic development of Drosophila melanogaster.
Berlin: Springer Verlag. 227 p.
59. Potter CJ, Luo L (2010) Splinkerette PCR for mapping transposable elements in Drosophila. PLoS One 5:
e10168.
60. Blumenstiel JP, Noll AC, Griffiths JA, Perera AG, Walton KN, et al. (2009) Identification of EMS-induced
mutations in Drosophila melanogaster by whole-genome sequencing. Genetics 182: 25-32.
61. Cook RK, Christensen SJ, Deal JA, Coburn RA, Deal ME, et al. (2012) The generation of chromosomal
deletions to provide extensive coverage and subdivision of the Drosophila melanogaster genome.
Genome Biol 13: R21.
62. Duncan IW (2002) Transvection effects in Drosophila. Annu Rev Genet 36: 521-556.
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 28
For this, you start by crossing ry females with e males or vice versa (P, parental cross). In the first
filial generation (F1), all flies are trans-heterozygous (ry,+/+,e). Note that the different fly stocks
used in this cross will be colour-coded to allow you to easily trace the origin of each chromosome.
According to the recombination rule, you need to take females so that recombination can occur.
Note that crossing-over during oogenesis in these females occurs at random, i.e. their eggs which
give rise to the second filial generation (F2) represent a cocktail of recombination events with a
statistical likelihood of 18.7% as calculated above. Note that only half of the tested animals carry
the first marker ry, out of which only 18.7% display the wanted recombination. Therefore, 9.35% of
the single F2 individuals carry a recombinant chromosome with both markers, and 9.35% a
recombinant chromosome with wildtype alleles of both markers. The key task is to identify and
isolate these recombination events through a step-wise process.
In the first step, recombination events need to be "stabilised" to prevent further recombination. For
this, F1 females are crossed to a balancer stock carrying a balancer chromosome (Bal1) over a
dominantly marked chromosome (M1; sections 4.2. and 4.3). In the third filial generation (F3), you
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 29
determine whether one of the markers (here ry) is present (remember that, according to the law of
segregation, only 50% of balanced F2 individuals carry ry). To determine the presence of ry, you
cross F2 animals back to a ry mutant stock. Two important issues need to be considered here.
Firstly, each individual in F2 is the result of an individual recombination event in its mother's
germline. Therefore, single animals need to be tested for the presence of ry. For practical
reasons, use single males since they can fertilise several females and therefore have a higher
likelihood to generate enough offspring.
Secondly, you have to cross back to ry mutant flies, but need to be able to distinguish your
recombinant chromosome from the ry chromosome of the back-cross. For this, cross the ry
stock to a balancer stock (Bal2) that can be distinguished from Bal1.
In F3, use simple selection to separate out two groups of flies: non-balanced flies allow you to
determine whether flies have brownish eyes (i.e. carry ry on their potentially recombinant
chromosome). If this is the case, flies carrying Bal2 over the potentially recombinant paternal
chromosome (rather than the ry chromosome of their mothers) can be used to establish a stable fly
stock. The fourth filial generation (F4) emerging from these newly established fly stocks will contain
non-balanced animals (ry and e are viable mutations). Stocks in which non-balanced flies have
brownish eyes and dark body colour bear the desired recombinant chromosome and will be kept,
the rest discarded.
Tips: To have a statistical chance of isolating recombination events, more than 10 single crosses in
F2 should be used to match the 9.35% chance of obtaining a recombinant. Furthermore, the
example of ry and e represents an unusual case, since they are common marker mutations that are
found on several balancer chromosomes (section 4.3.). Using balancers with these markers would
allow you to immediately identify the presence of the desired mutations on the potentially
recombinant chromosomes. Try it yourself.
A. Prokop - A rough guide to Drosophila mating schemes 30
Example of a trihybrid cross between heterozygous parents (P, top) involving recessive alleles on X, 2nd and
3rd chromosomes (separated by semicolons). Homologous alleles are separated by a horizontal line; maternal
alleles are shown in black, paternal ones in blue. Mutant alleles are w (white; white eyes), vg (vestigial;
reduced wings), e (ebony; dark body colour); phenotypes are indicated by fly diagrams (compare Fig. 9). In
the first offspring/filial generation (F1) each chromosome has undergone independent assortment of alleles
(demarcated by curly brackets) and each of the four possible outcomes per chromosome can be combined
with any of the outcomes of the other two chromosomes resulting in 4 x 4 x 4 = 64 combinations. The Punnett
square at the bottom systematically lists all possible combinations (different phenotype classes are colour-
coded and display a 18:18:6:6:6:6:2:2 distribution; symbols are explained at the bottom). Red and blue
stippled boxes show the same examples of two possible offspring in both the curly bracket scheme and the
Punnett square. Note that the Punnett square reflects the numerical outcome of this cross in its full
complexity, whereas the curly bracket strategy only qualitatively reflects potential combinations and is easier
to interpret for the purpose of mating scheme design (Box 5).