期刊文献+

Drosophila, destroying angels, and deathcaps! Oh my! A review of mycotoxin tolerance in the genus Drosophila

Drosophila, destroying angels, and deathcaps! Oh my! A review of mycotoxin tolerance in the genus Drosophila
原文传递
导出
摘要 BACKGROUND: Evolutionary novelties, be they morphological or biochemical, fascinate both scientists and non-scientists alike. These types of adaptations can significantly impact the biodiversity of the organisms in which they occur. While much work has been invested in the evolution of novel morphological traits, substantially less is known about the evolution of biochemical adaptations. METHODS: In this review, we present the results of literature searches relating to one such biochemical adaptation: α- amanitin tolerance/resistance in the genus Drosophila. RESULTS: Amatoxins, including α-amanitin, are one of several toxin classes found in Amanita mushrooms. They act by binding to RNA polymerase Ⅱ and inhibiting RNA transcription. Although these toxins are lethal to most eukaryotic organisms, 17 mushroom-feeding Drosophila species are tolerant of natural concentrations of amatoxins and can develop in toxic mushrooms. The use of toxic mushrooms allows these species to avoid infection by parasitic nematodes and lowers competition. Their amatoxin tolerance is not due to mutations that would inhibit α-amanitin from binding to RNA polymerase Ⅱ. Furthermore, the mushroom-feeding flies are able to detoxify the other toxin classes that occur in their mushroom hosts. In addition, resistance has evolved independently in several D. melanogaster strains. Only one of the strains exhibits resistance due to mutations in the target of the toxin. CONCLUSIONS: Given our current understanding of the evolutionary relationships among the mushroom-feeding flies, it appears that amatoxin tolerance evolved multiple times. Furthermore, independent lines of evidence suggest that multiple mechanisms confer α-amanitin tolerance/resistance in Drosophila. BACKGROUND: Evolutionary novelties, be they morphological or biochemical, fascinate both scientists and non-scientists alike. These types of adaptations can significantly impact the biodiversity of the organisms in which they occur. While much work has been invested in the evolution of novel morphological traits, substantially less is known about the evolution of biochemical adaptations. METHODS: In this review, we present the results of literature searches relating to one such biochemical adaptation: α- amanitin tolerance/resistance in the genus Drosophila. RESULTS: Amatoxins, including α-amanitin, are one of several toxin classes found in Amanita mushrooms. They act by binding to RNA polymerase Ⅱ and inhibiting RNA transcription. Although these toxins are lethal to most eukaryotic organisms, 17 mushroom-feeding Drosophila species are tolerant of natural concentrations of amatoxins and can develop in toxic mushrooms. The use of toxic mushrooms allows these species to avoid infection by parasitic nematodes and lowers competition. Their amatoxin tolerance is not due to mutations that would inhibit α-amanitin from binding to RNA polymerase Ⅱ. Furthermore, the mushroom-feeding flies are able to detoxify the other toxin classes that occur in their mushroom hosts. In addition, resistance has evolved independently in several D. melanogaster strains. Only one of the strains exhibits resistance due to mutations in the target of the toxin. CONCLUSIONS: Given our current understanding of the evolutionary relationships among the mushroom-feeding flies, it appears that amatoxin tolerance evolved multiple times. Furthermore, independent lines of evidence suggest that multiple mechanisms confer α-amanitin tolerance/resistance in Drosophila.
出处 《Frontiers in Biology》 CAS CSCD 2018年第2期91-102,共12页 生物学前沿(英文版)
关键词 DROSOPHILA mushroom-feeding biochemical adaptations mushroom toxins CYCLOPEPTIDES α-amanitin Drosophila mushroom-feeding biochemical adaptations mushroom toxins cyclopeptides α-amanitin
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献42

  • 1Aitchison J, 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. London, NY: Chapman and Hall.
  • 2Bewick ER, Dyer KA, 2014. Reinforcement shapes clines in female mate dis crimination in Drosophila subquinaria. Evolution 68:3082-3094.
  • 3Bhutkar A, Schaeffer SW, Russo SM, Xu M, Smith TE et al., 2008. Chromosomal rearrangement inferred from comparisons of 12 Drosophila genomes. Genetics 179:1657-1680.
  • 4Bonduriansky R, Mallet MA, Arbuthnott D, Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Egozcue JJ et al., 2015. Differential effects of genetic vs. environmental quality in Drosophila melanogaster suggest multiple forms of condition dependence. Ecol Lett 18:317-326.
  • 5Butlin R, 1989. Speciation by reinforcement. In: Otte D, Endler JA editors. Speciation and its Consequences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 158-179.
  • 6Coyne JA, 1984. Genetic-basis of male-sterility in hybrids between two closely related species of Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci 81:44444447.
  • 7Coyne JA, Orr HA, 1989. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution 43:362-381.
  • 8Coyne JA, Orr HA, 1997. "Patterns of speciation in Drosophila" revisited. Evolution 51:295-303.
  • 9Coyne JA, Orr HA, 2004. Speciation. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
  • 10Curtis S, Sztepanacz JL, White BE, Dyer KA, Rundle HD et al., 2013. Epicuticular compounds of Drosophila subquinaria and D. recens: identifi- cation, quantification, and their role in female mate choice. J Chem Ecol 39:579-590.

共引文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部