How a fly came to love the vomit fruit

Zung, Jessica L.; McBride, Carolyn S.

doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00535-1

NEWS AND VIEWS
04 March 2020

How a fly came to love the vomit fruit

Neurogenetic tools commonly used in model organisms have now been adapted to investigate feeding behaviour in the fly Drosophila sechellia. The experiments shed light on why this fly is such a fussy eater.

Jessica L. Zung⁰ &
Carolyn S. McBride¹

Jessica L. Zung
1. Jessica L. Zung is in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA.
View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Carolyn S. McBride
1. Carolyn S. McBride is in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA.
View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Access through your institution

Buy or subscribe

Even closely related animals can behave in strikingly different ways. For example, the fly Drosophila sechellia feeds exclusively on the toxic noni fruit (Morinda citrifolia), whereas its closest relatives reject noni in favour of more-conventional options¹. In these flies²^–⁴, and in other animals⁵^–⁷, researchers have observed intriguing neural differences between close relatives that might explain their differing behaviours. But until recently, it has been impossible to test these neural–behavioural correlations directly. Writing in Nature, Auer et al.⁸ adapt genome-editing approaches for use in D. sechellia. This allows them to probe the neural and genetic changes underlying the fly’s dietary preference.

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Nature 579, 345-346 (2020)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00535-1

References

Stensmyr, M. C. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1170, 468–475 (2009).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Stensmyr, M. C., Dekker, T. & Hansson, B. S. Proc. R. Soc. B 270, 2333–2340 (2003).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Ibba, I., Angioy, A. M., Hansson, B. S. & Dekker, T. Naturwissenschaften 97, 1059–1066 (2010).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Prieto-Godino, L. L. et al. Neuron 93, 661–676 (2017).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. et al. Ibis 138, 34–46 (1996).
Article Google Scholar
Zhao, Z. & McBride, C. S. J. Comp. Physiol. A https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-020-01399-6 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
Aragona, B. J. & Wang, Z. ILAR J. 45, 35–45 (2004).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Auer, T. O. et al. Nature 579, 402–408 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
Garrigan, D. et al. Genome Res. 22, 1499–1511 (2012).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Jones, C. D. Genetica 123, 137–145 (2005).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Ding, Y. et al. Curr. Biol. 29, 1089–1099 (2019).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Seeholzer, L. F., Seppo, M., Stern, D. L. & Ruta, V. Nature 559, 564–569 (2018).
Article PubMed Google Scholar