Cargando…
Are Drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual?
Whether there are general mechanisms, driving interspecific chemical communication is uncertain. Saccharomycetaceae yeast and Drosophila fruit flies, both extensively studied research models, share the same fruit habitat, and it has been suggested their interaction comprises a facultative mutualism...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6662392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31380072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5366 |
_version_ | 1783439641399001088 |
---|---|
author | Günther, Catrin S. Knight, Sarah J. Jones, Rory Goddard, Matthew R. |
author_facet | Günther, Catrin S. Knight, Sarah J. Jones, Rory Goddard, Matthew R. |
author_sort | Günther, Catrin S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Whether there are general mechanisms, driving interspecific chemical communication is uncertain. Saccharomycetaceae yeast and Drosophila fruit flies, both extensively studied research models, share the same fruit habitat, and it has been suggested their interaction comprises a facultative mutualism that is instigated and maintained by yeast volatiles. Using choice tests, experimental evolution, and volatile analyses, we investigate the maintenance of this relationship and reveal little consistency between behavioral responses of two isolates of sympatric Drosophila species. While D. melanogaster was attracted to a range of different Saccharomycetaceae yeasts and this was independent of fruit type, D. simulans preference appeared specific to a particular S. cerevisiae genotype isolated from a vineyard fly population. This response, however, was not consistent across fruit types and is therefore context‐dependent. In addition, D. simulans attraction to an individual S. cerevisiae isolate was pliable over ecological timescales. Volatile candidates were analyzed to identify a common signal for yeast attraction, and while D. melanogaster generally responded to fermentation profiles, D. simulans preference was more discerning and likely threshold‐dependent. Overall, there is no strong evidence to support the idea of bespoke interactions with specific yeasts for either of these Drosophila genotypes. Rather the data support the idea Drosophila are generally adapted to sense and locate fruits infested by a range of fungal microbes and/or that yeast–Drosophila interactions may evolve rapidly. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6662392 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66623922019-08-02 Are Drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual? Günther, Catrin S. Knight, Sarah J. Jones, Rory Goddard, Matthew R. Ecol Evol Original Research Whether there are general mechanisms, driving interspecific chemical communication is uncertain. Saccharomycetaceae yeast and Drosophila fruit flies, both extensively studied research models, share the same fruit habitat, and it has been suggested their interaction comprises a facultative mutualism that is instigated and maintained by yeast volatiles. Using choice tests, experimental evolution, and volatile analyses, we investigate the maintenance of this relationship and reveal little consistency between behavioral responses of two isolates of sympatric Drosophila species. While D. melanogaster was attracted to a range of different Saccharomycetaceae yeasts and this was independent of fruit type, D. simulans preference appeared specific to a particular S. cerevisiae genotype isolated from a vineyard fly population. This response, however, was not consistent across fruit types and is therefore context‐dependent. In addition, D. simulans attraction to an individual S. cerevisiae isolate was pliable over ecological timescales. Volatile candidates were analyzed to identify a common signal for yeast attraction, and while D. melanogaster generally responded to fermentation profiles, D. simulans preference was more discerning and likely threshold‐dependent. Overall, there is no strong evidence to support the idea of bespoke interactions with specific yeasts for either of these Drosophila genotypes. Rather the data support the idea Drosophila are generally adapted to sense and locate fruits infested by a range of fungal microbes and/or that yeast–Drosophila interactions may evolve rapidly. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6662392/ /pubmed/31380072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5366 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Günther, Catrin S. Knight, Sarah J. Jones, Rory Goddard, Matthew R. Are Drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual? |
title | Are Drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual? |
title_full | Are Drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual? |
title_fullStr | Are Drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual? |
title_full_unstemmed | Are Drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual? |
title_short | Are Drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual? |
title_sort | are drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual? |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6662392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31380072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5366 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gunthercatrins aredrosophilapreferencesforyeastsstableorcontextual AT knightsarahj aredrosophilapreferencesforyeastsstableorcontextual AT jonesrory aredrosophilapreferencesforyeastsstableorcontextual AT goddardmatthewr aredrosophilapreferencesforyeastsstableorcontextual |