Toxicology International (Formerly Indian Journal of Toxicology)

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Utilization of Courtship Behavioral Elements to Understand the Toxicity of Methyl methanesulfonate in Drosophila melanogaster


Affiliations
1 Department of Bioscience, University of Mysore, P.G. Centre, Hemagangothri, Hassan – 573220, Karnataka, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


A standard, monofunctional alkylating agent, Methyl methanesulfonate, was tested for its effects on courtship behavioral elements in Drosophila melanogaster. Different concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 3 mM were analyzed using the larval feeding technique. When the different combinations of crosses were performed to analyze the effects, the results have revealed that male courtship elements such as orientation, tapping, wing vibration and licking were significantly increased compared to controls. Similar data were observed in case of female behavior. Nonetheless, the courtship behavior interms of fitness such as courtship latency and copulation latency were significantly high and copulation duration was significantly reduced, thus emphasizing the effect on fitness and inturn viability. On par with earlier data on toxicity, the present results also demonstrate the drastic effects of Methyl Methanesulfonate (MMS) on the courtship behavior of D. melanogaster. Thus, it is opined that courtship elements as a parameter can be utilized to understand toxicity and also it can be analyzed within a short period of time.

Keywords

Courtship Elements, Drosophila melanogaster, Methyl methanesulfonate, Toxicity
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • Brewen JG, Payne HS, Jones KP, Preston RJ. Studies on chemically induced dominant lethality. I. The cytogenetic basis of MMS-induced dominant lethality in post-meiotic male germ cells. Mutat Res. 1975; 33(2- 3):239–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0027-5107(75)902 00-6

  • Vogel E, Natarajan AT. The relation between reaction kinetics and mutagenic action of mono-functional alkylating agents in higher eukaryotic systems: I. Recessive lethal mutations and translocations in Drosophila. Mutat Res Fund Mol Mech Mutagen. 1979; 62(1):51–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0027-5107(79)90223-9

  • Vasudev V, Mahmood R, Harish SK, Guruprasad KP. Comparative analysis of error-free DNA repair (adaptive response) induced by EMS and MMS in Poecilocerus pictus and mouse. Environmental Pollution and Genetic Risk. M. Hemaprasad and PP Reddy, Ed. M/s. Murthy Graphics, Hyderabad. 1997; 59–68.

  • Kaya B. Anti-genotoxic effect of ascorbic acid on mutagenic dose of three alkylating agents. Turk J Biol. 2004; 27(4):241–6.

  • Pottenger LH, Schisler MR, Zhang F, Bartels MJ, Fontaine DD, McFadden LG, Gollapudi BB. Doseresponse and operational thresholds/NOAELs for in vitro mutagenic effects from DNA-reactive mutagens, MMS and MNU. Mutat Res. 2009; 678(2):138–47. PMid: 19616119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2009.07.002

  • Hartwig A, Arand M, Epe B, Guth S, Jahnke G, Lampen A, Martus HJ, Monien B, Rietjens IM, Schmitz-Spanke S, Schriever-Schwemmer G. Mode of action-based risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens. Arch Toxicol. 2020; 94(6):1787–877. PMid: 32542409 PMCid: PMC7303094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-020-02733-2

  • Hurley LH. DNA and its associated processes as targets for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002; 2(3):188– 200. PMid: 11990855. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc749

  • Kaina B, Christmann M, Naumann S, Roos WP. MGMT: Key node in the battle against genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and apoptosis induced by alkylating agents. DNA Repair. 2007; 6(8):1079–99. PMid: 17485253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2007.03.008

  • Ralhan R, Kaur J. Alkylating agents and cancer therapy. Expert OpinTher Pat. 2007; 17(9):1061–75. https://doi.org/10.1517/13543776.17.9.1061

  • Kondo N, Takahashi A, Ono K, Ohnishi T. DNA damage induced by alkylating agents and repair pathways. Journal of Nucleic Acids. 2010; 543531. PMid: 21113301 PMCid: PMC2989456. https://doi. org/10.4061/2010/543531

  • Lossos C, Liu Y, Kolb KE, Christie AL, Van Scoyk A, Prakadan SM, Shigemori K, Stevenson KE, Morrow S, Plana OD, Fraser C. Mechanisms of lymphoma clearance induced by high-dose alkylating agents. Cancer Discovery. 2019; 9(7):944–61. PMid: 31040105 PMCid: PMC6606344. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1393

  • Muller HJ. Artificial transmutation of the Gene. Science. 1927; 66:84–7. PMid: 17802387. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.66.1699.84

  • Lüning KG. Drosophila-tests in pharmacology. Nature. 1966; 209(5018):84–6. PMid: 5956339. https://doi.org/10.1038/210104a0

  • Vogel E, Sobels FH. The function of Drosophila in genetic toxicology testing. Chemical mutagens. Boston, MA: Springer; 1976; 93–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0892-8_4

  • Sturtevant AH. Experiments on sex recognition and the problem of sexual selection in Drosophila. Anim Behav. 1915; 5(5):351. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0074109

  • Vasudev V, Gurushankara HP, Vishwaprakash Mahadimane P, Khalandar D, Shamprasad BR. Effects of fungicide Dithane M 45 in Drosophila melanogaster on courtship behavior. Dros Inf Serv. 2013; 96:94–8.

  • Vasudev V, Krishnamurthy NB. Toxicity of Dithane M-45 on Drosophila melanogaster. Experientia. 1979; 35(4):528–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01922750

  • Delcour J. A rapid and efficient method of egg collecting. Dros Inf Serv. 1969; 44:133–4.

  • Vasudev V, Krishnamurthy NB. Effect of Dithane M-45 on the rate of development, viability, morphology and fecundity in Drosophila melanogaster. J Mysore Univ. 1982; 29:79–86.

  • Sorsa M, Pfeifer S. Response of puffing pattern to in vivo treatments with organomercurials in Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas. 1973; 74(1):89–102. PMid: 4202374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1973.tb01107.x

  • Vasudev V, Krishnamutrhy NB. Preliminary studies on the effect of cadmium chloride on. D. melanogaster. Dros Inf Serv.1981; 56:153–4.

  • Vasudev V, Krishnamurthy NB. Utilization of Drosophila to understand the toxicity and mutagenicity of Baygon. Environ Pollut Resources Land Water. 1991; 205–13.

  • Bastock M, Manning A. The courtship of Drosophila melanogaster. Behaviour. 1955; 1:85–111. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853955X00184

  • Spieth HT. Courtship behavior in Drosophila. Annu Rev Entomol. 1974; 19(1):385–405. PMid: 4205689. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.19.010174.002125

  • Nazari M, Hegde SN. Effect of fluoxetine on the courtship latency, mating latency and copulation duration of Drosophila melanogaster. J Postgrad Med Inst. 2006; 20(1):58–63.

  • Nazari M. Effect of fluoxetine on the sexual behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster. J Postgrad Med Inst. 2011; 25(4):298–303.

  • Roy SS, Ghosh S. Effects of fruit ripening Retardant Alar (Daminozide) on behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Zool Soc. 2019; 73(3):296–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-019-00316-3

  • Eastwood L, Burnet B. Courtship latency in male Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Genet. 1977; 7(5):359–72. PMid: 411472. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01077449

  • Hegde SN, Krishna MS. Size-assortative mating in Drosophila malerkotliana. Anim Behav. 1997; 54(2):419–26. PMid: 9268474. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0485

  • Markow TA. Reproductive behavior of Drosophila melanogaster and D. nigrospiracula in the field and in the laboratory. J Comp Psychol. 1988; 102(2):169– 73. PMid: 3135147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-70 36.102.2.169

  • Ejima A, Griffith LC. Measurement of courtship behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2007; 1:10. PMid: 21356948. https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.prot4847

  • Markow TA, Quaid M, Kerr S. Male mating experience and competitive courtship success in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature. 1978; 276(5690):821–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/276821a0

  • Hegde SN, Krishnamurthy NB. Studies on mating behaviour in the Drosophila bipectinata complex. Australian Journal of Zoology. 1979; 27(3):421–31. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO9790421

  • Spieth HT. Evolutionary implications of sexual behavior in Drosophila. Evolutionary Biology. Boston, MA: Springer; 1968; 157–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8094-8_4

  • Spiess EB. Mating propensity and its genetic basis in Drosophila. Essays in Evolution and genetics in honor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Boston, MA: Springer; 1970; 315–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9585- 4_12

  • Guruprasad BR, Hegde SN, Krishna MS. Positive relation between male size and remating success in some populations of Drosophila bipectinata. Zool Stud. 2008; 47(1):75. http://zoolstud.sinica.edu.tw/Journals/47.1/75.pdf

  • Roy SS, Begum M, Ghosh S. Exploration of teratogenic and genotoxic effects of fruit ripening retardant Alar (Daminozide) on model organism Drosophila melanogaster. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2018; 11(1):27–37. PMid: 30181710 PMCid: PMC6117819. https://doi.org/10.2478/intox-2018-0004

  • Spieth HT, Ringo JM. Mating behavior and sexual isolation in Drosophila. The genetics and biology of Drosophila. 1983; 3:223–84.

  • Spieth HT. Courtship patterns and evolution of the Drosophila adiastola and planitibia species subgroups. Evolution. 1978; 1:435–51. PMid: 28563728. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1978.tb00658.x

  • Scott D, Richmond RC, Carlson DA. Pheromones exchanged during mating: A mechanism for mate assessment in Drosophila. Anim Behav. 1988; 36(4):1164–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(8 8)80075-7

  • Tompkins L, Gross AC, Hall JC, Gailey DA, Siegel RW. The role of female movement in the sexual behavior of Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Genet. 1982; 12(3):295–307. PMid: 6812562. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF01067849

  • Taylor CE, Kekic V. Sexual selection in a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 1988; 42(1):197–9. PMid: 28563853. https://doi.org/10.2307/2409128

  • Markow TA, Bustoz D, Pitnick S. Sexual selection and a secondary sexual character in two Drosophila species. Anim Behav. 1996; 52(4):759–66. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0220


Abstract Views: 282

PDF Views: 0




  • Utilization of Courtship Behavioral Elements to Understand the Toxicity of Methyl methanesulfonate in Drosophila melanogaster

Abstract Views: 282  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Baladare Udayakumar Divyashree
Department of Bioscience, University of Mysore, P.G. Centre, Hemagangothri, Hassan – 573220, Karnataka, India
Venkateshaiah Vasudev
Department of Bioscience, University of Mysore, P.G. Centre, Hemagangothri, Hassan – 573220, Karnataka, India

Abstract


A standard, monofunctional alkylating agent, Methyl methanesulfonate, was tested for its effects on courtship behavioral elements in Drosophila melanogaster. Different concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 3 mM were analyzed using the larval feeding technique. When the different combinations of crosses were performed to analyze the effects, the results have revealed that male courtship elements such as orientation, tapping, wing vibration and licking were significantly increased compared to controls. Similar data were observed in case of female behavior. Nonetheless, the courtship behavior interms of fitness such as courtship latency and copulation latency were significantly high and copulation duration was significantly reduced, thus emphasizing the effect on fitness and inturn viability. On par with earlier data on toxicity, the present results also demonstrate the drastic effects of Methyl Methanesulfonate (MMS) on the courtship behavior of D. melanogaster. Thus, it is opined that courtship elements as a parameter can be utilized to understand toxicity and also it can be analyzed within a short period of time.

Keywords


Courtship Elements, Drosophila melanogaster, Methyl methanesulfonate, Toxicity

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18311/ti%2F2021%2Fv28i3%2F27416