Evolution of compound eye morphology underlies differences in vision between closely related Drosophila species

被引:3
|
作者
Buffry, Alexandra D. [1 ]
Currea, John P. [2 ]
Franke-Gerth, Franziska A. [3 ]
Palavalli-Nettimi, Ravindra [4 ,5 ]
Bodey, Andrew J. [6 ]
Rau, Christoph [6 ]
Samadi, Nazanin [7 ]
Gstoehl, Stefan J. [7 ]
Schlepuetz, Christian M. [7 ]
McGregor, Alistair P. [8 ]
Sumner-Rooney, Lauren [9 ]
Theobald, Jamie [4 ,5 ]
Kittelmann, Maike [1 ]
机构
[1] Oxford Brookes Univ, Dept Biol & Med Sci, Oxford OX3 0BP, England
[2] UCLA, Integrat Biol & Physiol Dept, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[3] Univ Leipzig, Inst Biol, Mol Evolut & Systemat Anim, Talstr 33, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
[4] Florida Int Univ, Inst Environm, Miami, FL 33199 USA
[5] Florida Int Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Miami, FL USA
[6] Diamond Light Source Ltd, Harwell Sci & Innovat Campus, Didcot, England
[7] Paul Scherrer Inst, Swiss Light Source, Forschungsstr 111, CH-5232 Villigen, Switzerland
[8] Univ Durham, Dept Biosci, South Rd, Durham DH1 3LE, England
[9] Leibniz Inst Evolut & Biodivers Res, Museum Nat kunde, D-10115 Berlin, Germany
基金
英国生物技术与生命科学研究理事会; 美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Drosophila; Eye size; Evolution; Ommatidia; Vision; Acuity; Contrast; Field of view; Optic lobe; CELL NUMBER; SIZE; MELANOGASTER; SIMULANS; ACUITY;
D O I
10.1186/s12915-024-01864-7
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
BackgroundInsects have evolved complex visual systems and display an astonishing range of adaptations for diverse ecological niches. Species of Drosophila melanogaster subgroup exhibit extensive intra- and interspecific differences in compound eye size. These differences provide an excellent opportunity to better understand variation in insect eye structure and the impact on vision. Here we further explored the difference in eye size between D. mauritiana and its sibling species D. simulans. ResultsWe confirmed that D. mauritiana have rapidly evolved larger eyes as a result of more and wider ommatidia than D. simulans since they recently diverged approximately 240,000 years ago. The functional impact of eye size, and specifically ommatidia size, is often only estimated based on the rigid surface morphology of the compound eye. Therefore, we used 3D synchrotron radiation tomography to measure optical parameters in 3D, predict optical capacity, and compare the modelled vision to in vivo optomotor responses. Our optical models predicted higher contrast sensitivity for D. mauritiana, which we verified by presenting sinusoidal gratings to tethered flies in a flight arena. Similarly, we confirmed the higher spatial acuity predicted for Drosophila simulans with smaller ommatidia and found evidence for higher temporal resolution. ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that even subtle differences in ommatidia size between closely related Drosophila species can impact the vision of these insects. Therefore, further comparative studies of intra- and interspecific variation in eye morphology and the consequences for vision among other Drosophila species, other dipterans and other insects are needed to better understand compound eye structure-function and how the diversification of eye size, shape, and function has helped insects to adapt to the vast range of ecological niches.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evolution of compound eye morphology underlies differences in vision between closely related Drosophila species
    Alexandra D. Buffry
    John P. Currea
    Franziska A. Franke-Gerth
    Ravindra Palavalli-Nettimi
    Andrew J. Bodey
    Christoph Rau
    Nazanin Samadi
    Stefan J. Gstöhl
    Christian M. Schlepütz
    Alistair P. McGregor
    Lauren Sumner-Rooney
    Jamie Theobald
    Maike Kittelmann
    BMC Biology, 22
  • [2] tartan underlies the evolution of Drosophila male genital morphology
    Hagen, Joanna F. D.
    Mendes, Claudia C.
    Blogg, Amber
    Payne, Alexander
    Tanaka, Kentaro M.
    Gaspar, Pedro
    Jimenez, Javier Figueras
    Kittelmann, Maike
    McGregor, Alistair P.
    Nunes, Maria D. S.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2019, 116 (38) : 19025 - 19030
  • [3] Differences in genome size between closely related species:: The Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup
    Boulesteix, M
    Weiss, M
    Biémont, C
    MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2006, 23 (01) : 162 - 167
  • [4] Asymmetrical sexual isolation but no postmating isolation between the closely related species Drosophila suboccidentalis and Drosophila occidentalis
    Arthur, Nicholas J.
    Dyer, Kelly A.
    BMC EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 2015, 15
  • [5] Evolution of Eye Morphology and Rhodopsin Expression in the Drosophila melanogaster Species Subgroup
    Posnien, Nico
    Hopfen, Corinna
    Hilbrant, Maarten
    Ramos-Womack, Margarita
    Murat, Sophie
    Schoenauer, Anna
    Herbert, Samantha L.
    Nunes, Maria D. S.
    Arif, Saad
    Breuker, Casper J.
    Schloetterer, Christian
    Mitteroecker, Philipp
    McGregor, Alistair P.
    PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (05):
  • [6] Genetic and developmental analysis of differences in eye and face morphology between Drosophila simulans and Drosophila mauritiana
    Arif, Saad
    Hilbrant, Maarten
    Hopfen, Corinna
    Almudi, Isabel
    Nunes, Maria D. S.
    Posnien, Nico
    Kuncheria, Linta
    Tanaka, Kentaro
    Mitteroecker, Philipp
    Schloetterer, Christian
    McGregor, Alistair P.
    EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT, 2013, 15 (04) : 257 - 267
  • [7] Aggression and discrimination among closely versus distantly related species of Drosophila
    Gupta, Tarun
    Howe, Sarah E.
    Zorman, Marlo L.
    Lockwood, Brent L.
    ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE, 2019, 6 (06):
  • [8] Binding Site Turnover Produces Pervasive Quantitative Changes in Transcription Factor Binding between Closely Related Drosophila Species
    Bradley, Robert K.
    Li, Xiao-Yong
    Trapnell, Cole
    Davidson, Stuart
    Pachter, Lior
    Chu, Hou Cheng
    Tonkin, Leath A.
    Biggin, Mark D.
    Eisen, Michael B.
    PLOS BIOLOGY, 2010, 8 (03):
  • [9] Male accessory gland proteins affect differentially female sexual receptivity and remating in closely related Drosophila species
    Denis, Beatrice
    Claisse, Gaelle
    Le Rouzic, Arnaud
    Wicker-Thomas, Claude
    Lepennetier, Gildas
    Joly, Dominique
    JOURNAL OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY, 2017, 99 : 67 - 77
  • [10] Closely related bird species demonstrate flexibility between beak morphology and underlying developmental programs
    Mallarino, Ricardo
    Campas, Otger
    Fritz, Joerg A.
    Burns, Kevin J.
    Weeks, Olivia G.
    Brenner, Michael P.
    Abzhanov, Arhat
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2012, 109 (40) : 16222 - 16227