Abstract
Insect toxicology and chemical ecology are inherently interconnected disciplines, both dedicated to unraveling the intricate relationships between insects and the diverse array of chemical compounds that pervade their surroundings. Drosophila melanogaster, owing to its genetic and physiological similarities to other insects, serves as a robust model system in the study of insect toxicology. Moreover, state-of-the-art techniques in Drosophila neurobiology have extensively probed the chemosensory system of insects, providing significant insights into their adaptation to chemical environments. In this review, we emphasize the advancements achieved through the application of Drosophila genetics in investigations spanning both of these fields, significantly enhancing our understanding of the mode of action and resistance mechanisms of insecticides, as well as unraveling the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying insect chemosensation and associated behaviors. The profound insights derived through this tiny fly not only enrich our understanding of the broader world of insects but also hold the potential to develop more effective and sustainable strategies for pest management.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Drosophila melanogaster, commonly known as the fruit fly, has served as a model organism in genetics research for well over a century. The utilization of Drosophila genetics has proven invaluable in exploring fundamental biological processes such as development, behavior, and disease, as well as more applied fields such as toxicology and chemical ecology. One of the key advantages of employing D. melanogaster as a model organism lies in its well-characterized genome and the availability of powerful genetic tools. The fruit fly possesses a relatively small genome that lends itself to facile manipulation through techniques such as gene editing and RNA interference. Additionally, D. melanogaster exhibits a short generation time, facilitating rapid genetic analysis and high-throughput screening. The application of Drosophila genetics has yielded numerous pivotal discoveries in biological research, encompassing the identification of key developmental genes, the elucidation of the role of genetic mutations in disease, and the unraveling of molecular mechanisms underlying behavior and memory [1].
Insect toxicology and chemical ecology are closely related fields that both focus on understanding the interactions between insects and the chemical compounds present in their environment, but they approach this interaction from slightly different angles. Insect toxicology primarily deals with the study of how chemical substances, including insecticides and other toxic compounds, affect insects. It aims to understand the mechanisms of toxicity, how insects develop resistance to toxic substances, and the impact of these compounds on insect populations, ecosystems, and even human health. Insect chemical ecology, on the other hand, focuses on the role of chemical compounds in mediating interactions between insects and their environment. It investigates how insects use chemical cues for finding mates, locating suitable habitats, identifying hosts or prey, and avoiding predators. Therefore, comprehending insect toxicology and chemical ecology is important for developing effective pest management strategies that minimize the use of harmful chemicals. Furthermore, understanding the ecological roles of insects and their interactions with other organisms is equally vital.
Here, we compile and organize existing research about the applications of Drosophila genetics in insect toxicology and chemical ecology, serving as a centralized resource for researchers, students, and professionals in these fields. This consolidation helps individuals access a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in this specific area of study and allows for the exchange of ideas and methodologies between researchers to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration.
Elucidating the mode of action of insecticides with Drosophila genetics
Chemical pesticides have been widely employed for pest control in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, as well as residential and urban areas. They have also played a crucial role in preventing the transmission of vector-borne diseases that affect both humans and animals. While the modes of action of most insecticides are known (www.irac-online.org), the precise molecular targets still remain elusive. Merely establishing an in vitro biochemical interaction between an insecticide and a protein is insufficient to confirm that the protein is indeed the target responsible for the insecticidal effect in vivo. Genetic evidence, demonstrating the impact of mutating the candidate receptor, is essential before conclusively identifying a specific protein as the target of an insecticide. Therefore, the utilization of forward/reverse genetics in D. melanogaster has proven to be a powerful approach in identifying protein targets for insecticides (Table 1). In cases where an insecticide does not exhibit toxicity towards flies, behavioral assays can be employed to characterize potential targets. For instance, climbing assays have been used to identify a Drosophila TRPV channel as the target for two insecticides, pymetrozine and pyrifluquinazon [2]. Similar strategies have also revealed the molecular target of flonicamid to be nicotinamidase [3]. Behavioral assays involving Drosophila null mutants of octopamine receptors have pinpointed Octβ2R, a receptor subtype, as the sole target of amitraz in vivo [4].
Actually, the mode of action of insecticides is well conserved between D. melanogaster and other insects, probably because insecticides disrupt essential physiological functions. For instance, the nAChR gene family, encoding the direct targets of neonicotinoids, spinosyns and many other insecticides, exhibits slow evolution, and the core groups of nAChR subunits exhibit significant conservation across diverse insect species, spanning approximately 300 million years of evolution, underscoring their essential functions in the nervous system. The majority of Drosophila nAChR subunit genes have one-to-one orthologs in the genomes of other insects, and the sequence identities between these orthologs are likewise considerable. For some subunit genes, even alternative splicing and RNA editing are conserved [7].
Besides utilizing various target gene alleles, Drosophila offers sophisticated genetic toolboxes that enable the manipulation of candidate target genes and target-expressing neurons with high spatial and temporal resolution. For example, using UAS-controlled transgenes that express RNAi-inducing or ORF constructs can lead to tissue-specific RNAi or overexpression. Another important tool in D. melanogaster is the thermogenetics reagents, such as UAS-trpA1 and UAS-Shibirets. Expressing the thermosensitive cation channel Drosophila TRPA1 with the Gal4/UAS system to acutely hyperstimulate neurons expressing Octβ2R within a narrow time frame mimics the effects of amitraz on target pests, providing evidence that in vivo pharmacological activation of Octβ2R by amitraz leads to toxicity and eventual mortality [4]. Electrophysiological studies conducted on native tissues or recombinant receptors have demonstrated that low concentrations of neonicotinoids can inhibit nAChR, while higher concentrations result in receptor activation. Consequently, it has remained unclear whether the insecticidal activity stems from nAChR inhibition or activation in vivo. However, through the utilization of Drosophila thermogenetics tools, it has been discovered that transient artificial activation, rather than inhibition, of nAChR-expressing neurons is sufficient to induce symptoms resembling neonicotinoid poisoning in flies. Hence, the overall effect of neonicotinoids involves neuronal depolarization through nAChR activation, which is more physiologically relevant [7].
Drosophila genetics as a powerful tool for studying insecticide resistance mechanisms
Invertebrate pest control faces a significant global challenge due to the prevalence of insecticide resistance, with over 600 different insect and mite species demonstrating resistance to at least one insecticide. Moreover, there are documented cases of resistance to more than 335 insecticides/acaricides. To address the potential failure of insecticide-based control methods, it is imperative to understand the underlying resistance mechanisms, which typically include behavioral, penetration, metabolic, and target-site resistance. The majority of the research conducted in the field to date has utilized the genetic tools and resources available in D. melanogaster, although the advent of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing now allows for gene modifications in pests. Introducing point mutations identified in target genes of resistant pest populations into homologous sites in Drosophila is quick and straightforward, enabling genetic confirmation of the causal relationships between genotypes and resistance phenotypes (Table 2). Additionally, numerous reports have indicated that insecticide resistance is associated with variations in the overexpression of metabolic enzymes such as cytochrome P450s, carboxylesterases, glutathione-S-transferases, and UDP-glucuronosyltransferases. However, establishing a definitive causal link between overexpression and resistance has often lacked supporting evidence. Therefore, the controlled overexpression of metabolic genes from pests into Drosophila has proven to be a valuable tool in establishing connections between enzyme activity and resistance (Table 3).
Drosophila genetics as a model system for studying the chemical ecology of insects
Drosophila genetics has also been employed to investigate the field of chemical ecology in insects. Chemical ecology focuses on studying the interactions between organisms and their chemical environment, including the roles of chemicals in communication, defense, and other ecological interactions. Insect taste and odor receptors are very sensitive detectors to find nutritious food, mates, and safe oviposition sites or avoid any potential predators. D. melanogaster has been used as a model organism in a variety of chemical ecology studies, including those related to pheromones, food odorants/tastants, and plant volatiles/non-volatiles. Following the first identification of the insect taste or odor receptors in D. melanogaster, similar receptors have been identified in many other insects, including the silk moth, Bombyx mori, the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles gambiae, and the honey bee Apis mellifera.
One advantage of using Drosophila genetics in chemical ecology studies is the ability to identify specific genes and pathways involved in chemical sensing and response. For example, genetic screens have been used to identify chemoreceptors and other genes involved in the detection of specific chemical cues. Additionally, Drosophila genetics allows for the manipulation of specific genes or pathways to investigate their roles in chemical communication and other behaviors.
Insects commonly employ semiochemicals to communicate within their own species or with other species. These semiochemicals include pheromones, allomones, and kairomones. Food trail pheromones, alarm pheromones, and sex pheromones are examples that can significantly influence behavior and physiology. The production of allomones and kairomones allows insects to avoid harmful food sources or predators. Drosophila genetics has been instrumental in identifying the receptor of 11-cis-Vaccenyl Acetate (cVA) as a volatile sex pheromone. Furthermore, there are many contact-mediated pheromones, such as the male dominant monoalkenes, (Z)-7-tricosene and (Z)-9-tricosene, and the female specific (7Z,11Z)-heptacosadiene. These pheromones can be studied as aggregation pheromones to gain insights into their chemical communication. Research involving Drosophila genetics and various tools in chemical ecology provides not only an understanding of how to respond to specific chemicals but also insight into how the chemical signals integrate into the higher brain center.
Furthermore, the use of Drosophila genetics and many research tools in chemical ecology studies allows for comparisons across species. By studying the genetics and behavior of Drosophila in response to specific chemicals, researchers can gain insights into the evolution of chemical communication and other ecological interactions across different insect species.
Identification of gustatory receptor for various tastants in Drosophila
Taste organs are broadly distributed, such as the mouth parts labellum, legs, wing margins, and a female ovipositor as external organs. In addition, the pharynx also houses gustatory receptor neurons (GRNs) as internal organs. D. melanogaster has 31 taste sensilla in each hemisphere. A taste sensillum has a pore to have both chemosensory and mechanosensory cells. The sensilla on the labellum are the most well studied taste sensilla, categorizing the bristles and the taste pegs. Each taste bristle is typically innervated by two or four bipolar chemosensory neurons and a mechanosensory neuron. The taste sensilla can be categorized as long (L), intermediate (I), and short (S)-types, depending on the size of the bristles. Each bristle was analyzed by the tip recording technique, making contact with the pore at the tip of the sensillum with the taste stimulus and an electrolyte. Experiments with various tastants distinguished at least four types of GRNs such as sweet-sensing, water-sensing, bitter-sensing, and salt-sensing GRNs. Alkaline-sensing GRNs have recently been identified. This finding suggests that each type of bristle may be more diverse and complex than previously thought, leaving the possibility of discovering uncharacterized GRNs in the future.
During the last two decades, many research groups have deorphanized GRs (Table 4). For example, GR43a has been identified as a fructose receptor that functions in the brain to detect fructose levels in hemolymph [69]. The Drosophila genome contains nine sweet GRs, primarily responsible for detecting sugars and other attractive chemicals. GR8a, GR66a, and GR98b were first characterized as a full repertoire of L-canavanine receptors [70, 71].
In insects, ionotropic receptors (IRs) are also very popular taste receptors that mainly function to detect salty and sour tastants (Table 4). Recent behavioral and physiological studies have revealed that GRs and IRs may function together to detect the same chemicals, such as amino acids, metal ions, hexanoic acids, and attractive carboxylic acids, although the pathway and the exact mechanism are not clear. One study utilized in vivo calcium imaging from the subesophageal zone (SEZ), which is the first place to receive all the peripheral taste information, to demonstrate the simultaneous activation and deactivation of IR25a and sweet GRs, respectively, in response to lactic acid stimuli [95]. Mutants lacking specific receptors exhibited defects in calcium imaging during the corresponding phases.
Most chemoreceptors, such as sweet and bitter taste receptors, detect a chemical in a dose-dependent manner. In contrast, depending on the concentration of salt and sour, D. melanogaster likes low concentrations and dislikes high concentrations. This preference is mediated by the specific GRNs that harbor the corresponding receptors. For example, IR56b and IR7c work in attractive or aversive GRNs to detect salt, respectively [91, 92]. Recent studies also provide the evidence that arginine, proline, and lysine among amino acids as well as low fatty acids such as hexanoic acid also work as attractive or aversive tastants depending on the concentrations.
Except GRs and IRs, other highly well conserved ion channels in the animal kingdom, such as pickpocket ion channels (PPKs), transient receptor potential ion channels (TRPs), otopetrins, and alkaliphile participate in contact chemosensation to detect water, pungent chemicals, inorganic protons, and basic solutions (Table 4).
Identification of olfactory receptors for various odorants with Drosophila genetics
Olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs) in insects are found in the antennae and maxillary palps. Each sensillum contains ORN dendrites that can detect odors through pores. The axons of the ORNs innervate the glomeruli in the antennal lobes of the brain. The ORNs expressing the same receptor project to a single glomerulus in each hemisphere. They synapse with the projection neurons to transmit signals to the higher olfactory centers, such as the mushroom body and the lateral horn. The olfactory sensilla of the antennae can be divided into three morphological types: basiconic, coeloconic, and trichoid.
A bioinformatic search for olfactory receptor (Or) genes identified 60 Or genes that mainly function in the antennae or maxillary palps. Orco is unusually expressed in most olfactory neurons and is the most well conserved chemoreceptor gene in insects. ORCO is a coreceptor to detect specific odors with another specific OR, which results in the role of ORCO in the transport or function of another specific OR. Insect ORNs have been analyzed by extracellular recording techniques. Loss of Or genes does not affect the survival of ORNs. The deletion of Or22a and Or22b results in an empty neuron that is unresponsive to odors. Therefore, the empty neuron system has been widely used to identify unknown receptors by misexpressing them. ORs are required for detecting aversive odorants such as DEET, IR3535, picaridin, and pyrethrum as well as nutrient yeast, alcohol, and volatile sex pheromone, cVA (Table 5). IRs are another important clade to work in sensory neurons in ORNs but do not generally coexpress ORs. Olfactory sensory neurons housed in coeloconic sensilla do not express Orco and are tuned to acids, ammonia, and humidity. The most broadly expressed IRs (IR8a and IR25a) in the antennae mainly function to detect acids and organic compounds such as 1,4-diaminobutane, pyrrolidine, phenethylamine, ammonia, and polyamines (Table 5).
Recent interesting findings include a geosmin receptor, OR56a. Geosmin is an earthy or musty flavor from toxic microbes, triggering an aversive response in Drosophila flies. The geosmin detection system allows flies to generally inhibit feeding and oviposition [115]. In contrast, D. sechillia is an extreme specialist on Morinda citrifolia (noni fruit), while D. melanogaster is a generalist. The characterization of the Or22a pathway and comparative studies of the circuit from specialists and generalists provide how animal behavior evolves [131]. DsecOrco, DsecOr22a, DsecIr8a, and DsecIr75b are needed for detecting odor bouquets from noni fruit. Scaptomyza flava, an herbivorous leaf mining fly species in the family Drosophilidae, specializes in isothiocyanate (ITC)-producing plants, Brassicales. Sfla Or67bs mediate ITC responses [133], although D. melanogaster is known to detect ITC via TRPA1.
Recent pheromone studies in olfaction from parasitoids and locusts have provided interesting insights. Campoletis chlorideae is one of most common hymenopteran parasites emerging from Helicoverpa armigera. A recent study showed that CchlOr18 and CchlOr47 are selectively tuned to two female-derived pheromones, tetradecanal and 2-heptadecanone, to elicit strong responses from males [134]. These pheromones can be developed to control specific pests. In addition, cannibalism in migratory locusts is known to be mediated by phenylacetonitrile and its receptor, LmOr70a [132]. Researchers can gain insight into the mechanisms of chemical communication and other ecological interactions across diverse insect species.
Perspectives
Our review emphasizes the pivotal role this model organism has played in advancing our understanding of insect responses to chemicals, including breakthroughs in the mode of action of insecticides, resistance mechanisms, and the molecular basis of chemosensation. Understanding how Drosophila research informs strategies for pest management, crop protection and sustainable agriculture is vital for addressing the practical challenges associated with chemical control of insect pests. This type of review can also help students and early-career scientists gain a deeper understanding of the foundational principles and recent advances. While genome modification becomes increasingly accessible in non-model species and related resources continue to accumulate, the value of D. melanogaster as a model organism for studying insect toxicology and chemical ecology is still expected to persist well into the future. The expanding repertoire of genetic and genomic resources, along with the accompanying technologies, presents numerous opportunities for researchers in this field.
Availability of data and materials
All data analyzed during this study are included within the paper.
References
Bellen HJ, Tong C, Tsuda H. 100 years of Drosophila research and its impact on vertebrate neuroscience: a history lesson for the future. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11:514–22.
Nesterov A, et al. TRP channels in insect stretch receptors as insecticide targets. Neuron. 2015;86:665–71.
Qiao X, et al. An insecticide target in mechanoreceptor neurons. Sci Adv. 2022;8:eabq3132.
Guo L, Fan XY, Qiao X, Montell C, Huang J. An octopamine receptor confers selective toxicity of amitraz on honeybees and Varroa mites. Elife. 2010;10:e68268.
Ffrench-Constant RH, Mortlock DP, Shaffer CD, MacIntyre RJ, Roush RT. Molecular cloning and transformation of cyclodiene resistance in Drosophila: an invertebrate g-aminobutyric acid subtype A receptor locus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;88:7209–13.
Ffrench-Constant RH, Rocheleau TA, Steichen JC, Chalmers AE. A point mutation in a Drosophila GABA receptor confers insecticide resistance. Nature. 1993;363:449–51.
Lu W, Liu Z, Fan X, Zhang X, Qiao X, Huang J. Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor modulator insecticides act on diverse receptor subtypes with distinct subunit compositions. PLoS Genet. 2022;18:e1009920.
Watson GB, et al. A spinosyn-sensitive Drosophila melanogaster nicotinic acetylcholine receptor identified through chemically induced target site resistance, resistance gene identification, and heterologous expression. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2010;40:376–84.
Kane NS, et al. Drug-resistant Drosophila indicate glutamate-gated chloride channels are targets for the antiparasitics nodulisporic acid and ivermectin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97:13949–54.
Wilson TG, Fabian J. A Drosophila melanogaster mutant resistant to a chemical analog of juvenile hormone. Dev Biol. 1986;118:190–201.
Wilson TG, Ashok M. Insecticide resistance resulting from an absence of target-site gene product. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:14040–4.
Douris V, et al. Resistance mutation conserved between insects and mites unravels the benzoylurea insecticide mode of action on chitin biosynthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:14692–7.
Sun X, et al. A novel V263I mutation in the glutamate-gated chloride channel of Plutella xylostella (L.) confers a high level of resistance to abamectin. Int J Biol Macromol. 2023;230:123389.
Xue W, et al. Untangling a Gordian knot: the role of a GluCl3 I321T mutation in abamectin resistance in Tetranychus urticae. Pest Manag Sci. 2021;77:1581–93.
Huang JM, et al. Double ryanodine receptor mutations confer higher diamide resistance in rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis. Pest Manag Sci. 2021;77:4971–9.
Huang 黄镜梅 JM, et al. Multiple target-site mutations occurring in lepidopterans confer resistance to diamide insecticides. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2020;121:103367.
Douris V, et al. Investigation of the contribution of RyR target-site mutations in diamide resistance by CRISPR/Cas9 genome modification in Drosophila. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2017;87:127–35.
Grigoraki L, et al. Striking diflubenzuron resistance in Culex pipiens, the prime vector of West Nile virus. Sci Rep. 2017;7:11699.
Samantsidis GR, O’Reilly AO, Douris V, Vontas J. Functional validation of target-site resistance mutations against sodium channel blocker insecticides (SCBIs) via molecular modeling and genome engineering in Drosophila. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2019;104:73–81.
Samantsidis GR, et al. “What I cannot create, I do not understand”: functionally validated synergism of metabolic and target site insecticide resistance. Proc Biol Sci. 2020;287:20200838.
Kaduskar B, et al. Reversing insecticide resistance with allelic-drive in Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Commun. 2022;13:291.
Zimmer CT, et al. A CRISPR/Cas9 mediated point mutation in the alpha 6 subunit of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor confers resistance to spinosad in Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochem Molec. 2016;73:62–9.
Homem RA, et al. Evolutionary trade-offs of insecticide resistance - the fitness costs associated with target-site mutations in the nAChR of Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Ecol. 2020;29:2661–75.
Lueke B, et al. Identification and functional characterization of a novel acetyl-CoA carboxylase mutation associated with ketoenol resistance in Bemisia tabaci. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2020;166:104583.
Haas J, Glaubitz J, Koenig U, Nauen R. A mechanism-based approach unveils metabolic routes potentially mediating chlorantraniliprole synergism in honey bees, Apis mellifera L., by azole fungicides. Pest Manag Sci. 2022;78:965–73.
Haas J, et al. A toxicogenomics approach reveals characteristics supporting the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) safety profile of the butenolide insecticide flupyradifurone. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2021;217:112247.
Manjon C, et al. Unravelling the molecular determinants of bee sensitivity to neonicotinoid insecticides. Curr Biol. 2018;28:1137–43 e1135.
Zimmer CT, et al. Neofunctionalization of Duplicated P450 Genes Drives the Evolution of Insecticide Resistance in the Brown Planthopper. Curr Biol. 2018;28:268–74 e265.
Pang R, Chen M, Liang Z, Yue X, Ge H, Zhang W. Functional analysis of CYP6ER1, a P450 gene associated with imidacloprid resistance in Nilaparvata lugens. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34992.
Wang LX, et al. Overexpression of ATP-binding cassette transporter Mdr49-like confers resistance to imidacloprid in the field populations of brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. Pest Manag Sci. 2022;78:579–90.
Zeng B, et al. The overexpression of cytochrome P450 genes confers buprofezin resistance in the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal). Pest Manag Sci. 2023;79:125–33.
Lu K, Li Y, Xiao T, Sun Z. The metabolic resistance of Nilaparvata lugens to chlorpyrifos is mainly driven by the carboxylesterase CarE17. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2022;241:113738.
Wang LX, Tao S, Zhang Y, Jia YL, Wu SF, Gao CF. Mechanism of metabolic resistance to pymetrozine in Nilaparvata lugens: over-expression of cytochrome P450 CYP6CS1 confers pymetrozine resistance. Pest Manag Sci. 2021;77:4128–37.
Bass C, et al. Gene amplification and microsatellite polymorphism underlie a recent insect host shift. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:19460–5.
Pym A, et al. Overexpression of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase and cytochrome P450 enzymes confers resistance to sulfoxaflor in field populations of the aphid. Myzus persicae Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2022;143:103743.
Zhang Z, et al. Cytochrome P450 gene, CYP6CX3, is involved in the resistance to cyantraniliprole in Bemisia tabaci. J Agric Food Chem. 2022;70:12398–407.
Guo L, et al. Expression profile of CYP402C1 and its role in resistance to imidacloprid in the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Insect Sci. 2023;30:146–60.
Daborn PJ, et al. Using Drosophila melanogaster to validate metabolism-based insecticide resistance from insect pests. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2012;42:918–24.
Mallott M, et al. A flavin-dependent monooxgenase confers resistance to chlorantraniliprole in the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2019;115:103247.
Li R, et al. Overexpression of PxalphaE14 Contributing to Detoxification of Multiple Insecticides in Plutella xylostella (L.). J Agric Food Chem. 2022;70:5794–804.
Li R, Zhu B, Shan J, Li L, Liang P, Gao X. Functional analysis of a carboxylesterase gene involved in beta-cypermethrin and phoxim resistance in Plutella xylostella (L.). Pest Manag Sci. 2021;77:2097–105.
Li X, Li R, Zhu B, Gao X, Liang P. Overexpression of cytochrome P450 CYP6BG1 may contribute to chlorantraniliprole resistance in Plutella xylostella (L.). Pest Manag Sci. 2018;74:1386–93.
Ibrahim SS, et al. Molecular drivers of insecticide resistance in the Sahelo-Sudanian populations of a major malaria vector Anopheles coluzzii. BMC Biol. 2023;21:125.
Edi CV, et al. CYP6 P450 enzymes and ACE-1 duplication produce extreme and multiple insecticide resistance in the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004236.
Riveron JM, et al. Genome-wide transcription and functional analyses reveal heterogeneous molecular mechanisms driving pyrethroids resistance in the major malaria vector Anopheles funestus across Africa. G3 (Bethesda). 2017;7:1819–32.
Ibrahim SS, et al. Allelic variation of cytochrome P450s drives resistance to bednet insecticides in a major malaria vector. PLoS Genet. 2015;11:e1005618.
Riveron JM, et al. Directionally selected cytochrome P450 alleles are driving the spread of pyrethroid resistance in the major malaria vector Anopheles funestus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:252–7.
Riveron JM, et al. The highly polymorphic CYP6M7 cytochrome P450 gene partners with the directionally selected CYP6P9a and CYP6P9b genes to expand the pyrethroid resistance front in the malaria vector Anopheles funestus in Africa. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:817.
Mugenzi LMJ, et al. The duplicated P450s CYP6P9a/b drive carbamates and pyrethroids cross-resistance in the major African malaria vector Anopheles funestus. PLoS Genet. 2023;19:e1010678.
Pei Y, Hao H, Zuo Y, Xue Y, Aioub AAA, Hu Z. Functional validation of CYP304A1 associated with haedoxan A detoxification in Aedes albopictus by RNAi and transgenic drosophila. Pest Manag Sci. 2023;79:447–53.
Ishak IH, et al. The cytochrome P450 gene CYP6P12 confers pyrethroid resistance in kdr-free Malaysian populations of the dengue vector Aedes albopictus. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24707.
Reid WR, et al. Transcriptional analysis of four family 4 P450s in a Puerto Rico strain of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) compared with an Orlando strain and their possible functional roles in permethrin resistance. J Med Entomol. 2014;51:605–15.
Kusimo MO, et al. Pyrethroid resistance in the New World malaria vector Anopheles albimanus is mediated by cytochrome P450 CYP6P5. Pesticide Biochem Physiol. 2022;183:105061.
Li M, Feng X, Reid WR, Tang F, Liu N. Multiple-P450 gene co-up-regulation in the development of permethrin resistance in the house fly, musca domestica. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:3170.
Zhu J, Feng J, Tian K, Li C, Li M, Qiu X. Functional characterization of CYP6G4 from the house fly in propoxur metabolism and resistance. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2022;187:105186.
Lv Y, et al. Functional validation of the roles of cytochrome P450s in tolerance to thiamethoxam and imidacloprid in a field population of Aphis gossypii. J Agric Food Chem. 2022;70:14339–51.
Zeng X, et al. Resistance risk assessment of the ryanoid anthranilic diamide insecticide cyantraniliprole in Aphis gossypii Glover. J Agric Food Chem. 2021;69:5849–57.
Peng T, et al. Functional investigation of lncRNAs and target cytochrome P450 genes related to spirotetramat resistance in Aphis gossypii Glover. Pest Manag Sci. 2022;78:1982–91.
Hu B, et al. Xenobiotic transcription factors CncC and maf regulate expression of CYP321A16 and CYP332A1 that mediate chlorpyrifos resistance in Spodoptera exigua. J Hazard Mater. 2020;398:122971.
Shi Y, Li W, Zhou Y, Liao X, Shi L. Contribution of multiple overexpressed carboxylesterase genes to indoxacarb resistance in Spodoptera litura. Pest Manag Sci. 2022;78:1903–14.
He L, et al. Cytochrome P450s genes CYP321A9 and CYP9A58 contribute to host plant adaptation in the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda. Pest Manag Sci. 2023;79:1783–90.
Tsakireli D, Riga M, Kounadi S, Douris V, Vontas J. Functional characterization of CYP6A51, a cytochrome P450 associated with pyrethroid resistance in the Mediterranean fruit fly ceratitis capitata. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2019;157:196–203.
Troczka BJ, et al. Identification and functional characterisation of a novel N-cyanoamidine neonicotinoid metabolising cytochrome P450, CYP9Q6, from the buff-tailed bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2019;111:103171.
Beadle K, et al. Genomic insights into neonicotinoid sensitivity in the solitary bee Osmia bicornis. Plos Genet. 2019;15:e1007903.
Zhu F, et al. A brain-specific cytochrome P450 responsible for the majority of deltamethrin resistance in the QTC279 strain of Tribolium castaneum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:8557–62.
Lu XP, Xu L, Meng LW, Wang LL, Niu J, Wang JJ. Divergent molecular evolution in glutathione S-transferase conferring malathion resistance in the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Chemosphere. 2020;242:125203.
Riga M, et al. Functional characterization of the Tetranychus urticae CYP392A11, a cytochrome P450 that hydroxylates the METI acaricides cyenopyrafen and fenpyroximate. Insect Biochem Molec. 2015;65:91–9.
Riga M, Ilias A, Vontas J, Douris V. Co-Expression of a homologous cytochrome P450 reductase is required for in vivo validation of the tetranychus urticae CYP392A16-based abamectin resistance in Drosophila. Insects. 2020;11:829.
Miyamoto T, Slone J, Song X, Amrein H. A fructose receptor functions as a nutrient sensor in the Drosophila brain. Cell. 2012;151:1113–25.
Lee Y, Kang MJ, Shim J, Cheong CU, Moon SJ, Montell C. Gustatory receptors required for avoiding the insecticide L-canavanine. J Neurosci. 2012;32:1429–35.
Shim J, et al. The full repertoire of Drosophila gustatory receptors for detecting an aversive compound. Nat Commun. 2015;6:1–8.
Jiao Y, Moon SJ, Montell C. A Drosophila gustatory receptor required for the responses to sucrose, glucose, and maltose identified by mRNA tagging. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104:14110–5.
Jiao Y, Moon SJ, Wang X, Ren Q, Montell C. Gr64f is required in combination with other gustatory receptors for sugar detection in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2008;18:1797–801.
Shrestha B, Aryal B, Lee Y. The taste of vitamin C in Drosophila. EMBO Rep. 2023;24:e56319.
Freeman EG, Wisotsky Z, Dahanukar A. Detection of sweet tastants by a conserved group of insect gustatory receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111:1598–603.
Sung HY, et al. Heterogeneity in the Drosophila gustatory receptor complexes that detect aversive compounds. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1–10.
Dweck HK, Carlson JR. Molecular logic and evolution of bitter taste in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2020;30:17–30 e13.
Shrestha B, Lee Y. Mechanisms of DEET gustation in Drosophila. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2021;131:103550.
Lee Y, Kim SH, Montell C. Avoiding DEET through insect gustatory receptors. Neuron. 2010;67:555–61.
Shrestha B, Nhuchhen Pradhan R, Nath DK, Lee Y. Cellular and molecular basis of IR3535 perception in Drosophila. Pest Manag Sci. 2022;78:793–802.
Moon SJ, Köttgen M, Jiao Y, Xu H, Montell C. A taste receptor required for the caffeine response in vivo. Curr Biol. 2006;16:1812–7.
Lee Y, Moon SJ, Montell C. Multiple gustatory receptors required for the caffeine response in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106:4495–500.
Poudel S, Kim Y, Gwak J-S, Jeong S, Lee Y. Gustatory receptor 22e is essential for sensing chloroquine and strychnine in Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2017;88:30–6.
Lee Y, Moon SJ, Wang Y, Montell C. A Drosophila gustatory receptor required for strychnine sensation. Chem Senses. 2015;40:525–33.
Sang J, Rimal S, Lee Y. Gustatory receptor 28b is necessary for avoiding saponin in Drosophila melanogaster. EMBO Rep. 2019;20:e47328.
Rimal S, Lee Y. Molecular sensor of nicotine in taste of Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2019;111:103178.
Rimal S, Sang J, Dhakal S, Lee Y. Cucurbitacin B activates bitter-sensing gustatory receptor neurons via gustatory receptor 33a in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Cells. 2020;43:530.
Poudel S, Kim Y, Kim YT, Lee Y. Gustatory receptors required for sensing umbelliferone in Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2015;66:110–8.
Aryal B, Lee Y. Histamine avoidance through three gustatory receptors in Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2022;144:103760.
Aryal B, Lee Y. Histamine gustatory aversion in Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2021;134:103586.
McDowell SA, Stanley M, Gordon MD. A molecular mechanism for high salt taste in Drosophila. bioRxiv. 2022.
Dweck HK, Talross GJ, Luo Y, Ebrahim SA, Carlson JR. Ir56b is an atypical ionotropic receptor that underlies appetitive salt response in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2022;32:1776–87 e1774.
Zhang YV, Ni J, Montell C. The molecular basis for attractive salt-taste coding in Drosophila. Science. 2013;340:1334–8.
Rimal S, Sang J, Poudel S, Thakur D, Montell C, Lee Y. Mechanism of acetic acid gustatory repulsion in Drosophila. Cell Rep. 2019;26:1432–42 e1434.
Stanley M, Ghosh B, Weiss ZF, Christiaanse J, Gordon MD. Mechanisms of lactic acid gustatory attraction in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2021;31:3525–37 e3526.
Shrestha B, Lee Y. Mechanisms of carboxylic acid attraction in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Cells. 2021;44:900.
Chen Y, Amrein H. Ionotropic receptors mediate Drosophila oviposition preference through sour gustatory receptor neurons. Curr Biol. 2017;27:2741–50 e2744.
Ganguly A, Chandel A, Turner H, Wang S, Liman ER, Montell C. Requirement for an otopetrin-like protein for acid taste in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118:e2110641118.
Mi T, et al. Alkaline taste sensation through the alkaliphile chloride channel in Drosophila. Nat Metab. 2023;5:466-80.
Aryal B, Dhakal S, Shrestha B, Lee Y. Molecular and neuronal mechanisms for amino acid taste perception in the Drosophila labellum. Curr Biol. 2022;32:1376–86.
Ganguly A, et al. A molecular and cellular context-dependent role for Ir76b in detection of amino acid taste. Cell Rep. 2017;18:737–50.
Xiao S, Baik LS, Shang X, Carlson JR. Meeting a threat of the Anthropocene: taste avoidance of metal ions by Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2022;119:e2204238119.
Luo R, et al. Molecular basis and homeostatic regulation of zinc taste. Protein Cell. 2022;13:462–9.
Lee Y, Poudel S, Kim Y, Thakur D, Montell C. Calcium taste avoidance in Drosophila. Neuron. 2018;97:67–74 e64.
Dhakal S, Sang J, Aryal B, Lee Y. Ionotropic receptors mediate nitrogenous waste avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster. Commun Biol. 2021;4:1–10.
Hussain A, et al. Ionotropic chemosensory receptors mediate the taste and smell of polyamines. PLoS Biol. 2016;14:e1002454.
Roshani Nhuchhen Pradhan BS, Youngseok Lee. Molecular basis of hexanoic acid taste in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Cells. 2023;46:451–60.
Brown EB, Shah KD, Palermo J, Dey M, Dahanukar A, Keene AC. Ir56d-dependent fatty acid responses in Drosophila uncover taste discrimination between different classes of fatty acids. Elife. 2021;10:e67878.
Tauber JM, Brown EB, Li Y, Yurgel ME, Masek P, Keene AC. A subset of sweet-sensing neurons identified by IR56d are necessary and sufficient for fatty acid taste. PLoS Genet. 2017;13:e1007059.
Sánchez-Alcañiz JA, et al. An expression atlas of variant ionotropic glutamate receptors identifies a molecular basis of carbonation sensing. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–14.
Kim H, Kim H, Kwon JY, Seo JT, Shin DM, Moon SJ. Drosophila Gr64e mediates fatty acid sensing via the phospholipase C pathway. PLoS Genet. 2018;14:e1007229.
Ahn J-E, Chen Y, Amrein H. Molecular basis of fatty acid taste in drosophila. Elife. 2017;6:e30115.
Pellegrino M, Steinbach N, Stensmyr MC, Hansson BS, Vosshall LB. A natural polymorphism alters odour and DEET sensitivity in an insect odorant receptor. Nature. 2011;478:511–4.
Syed Z, Pelletier J, Flounders E, Chitolina RF, Leal WS. Generic insect repellent detector from the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e17705.
Stensmyr MC, et al. A conserved dedicated olfactory circuit for detecting harmful microbes in Drosophila. Cell. 2012;151:1345–57.
Wang Q, et al. Identification of multiple odorant receptors essential for pyrethrum repellency in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 2021;17:e1009677.
Ai M, et al. Acid sensing by the Drosophila olfactory system. Nature. 2010;468:691–5.
Ai M, Blais S, Park J-Y, Min S, Neubert TA, Suh GS. Ionotropic glutamate receptors IR64a and IR8a form a functional odorant receptor complex in vivo in Drosophila. J Neurosci. 2013;33:10741–9.
Abuin L, Bargeton B, Ulbrich MH, Isacoff EY, Kellenberger S, Benton R. Functional architecture of olfactory ionotropic glutamate receptors. Neuron. 2011;69:44–60.
Vulpe A, Menuz K. Ir76b is a co-receptor for amine responses in Drosophila olfactory neurons. Front Cell Neurosci. 2021;15:759238.
Prieto-Godino LL, et al. Olfactory receptor pseudo-pseudogenes. Nature. 2016;539:93–7.
Dweck HK, Ebrahim SA, Farhan A, Hansson BS, Stensmyr MC. Olfactory proxy detection of dietary antioxidants in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2015;25:455–66.
Oh SM, Jeong K, Seo JT, Moon SJ. Multisensory interactions regulate feeding behavior in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118:e2004523118.
Jones WD, Cayirlioglu P, Grunwald Kadow I, Vosshall LB. Two chemosensory receptors together mediate carbon dioxide detection in Drosophila. Nature. 2007;445:86–90.
Kwon JY, Dahanukar A, Weiss LA, Carlson JR. The molecular basis of CO2 reception in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104:3574–8.
Suh GS, et al. A single population of olfactory sensory neurons mediates an innate avoidance behaviour in Drosophila. Nature. 2004;431:854–9.
Grosjean Y, et al. An olfactory receptor for food-derived odours promotes male courtship in Drosophila. Nature. 2011;478:236–40.
Lin C-C, Prokop-Prigge KA, Preti G, Potter CJ. Food odors trigger Drosophila males to deposit a pheromone that guides aggregation and female oviposition decisions. Elife. 2015;4:e08688.
Min S, Ai M, Shin SA, Suh GS. Dedicated olfactory neurons mediating attraction behavior to ammonia and amines in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110:E1321–9.
van Naters WvdG, Carlson JR. Receptors and neurons for fly odors in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2007;17:606–12.
Auer TO, et al. Olfactory receptor and circuit evolution promote host specialization. Nature. 2020;579:402–8.
Chang H, et al. A chemical defense deters cannibalism in migratory locusts. Science. 2023;380:537–43.
Matsunaga T, et al. Evolution of olfactory receptors tuned to mustard oils in herbivorous Drosophilidae. Mol Biol Evol. 2022;39:msab362.
Guo H, et al. Sex pheromone communication in an insect parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae Uchida. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2022;119:e2215442119.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32072496 and 32272571 to J.H.) and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Korea government (MIST) (NRF-2021R1A2C1007628 to Y.L.).
Funding
This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32072496 and 32272571 to J.H.) and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Korea government (MIST) (NRF-2021R1A2C1007628 to Y.L.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J. H. and Y. L. both contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, J., Lee, Y. The power of Drosophila genetics in studying insect toxicology and chemical ecology. Crop Health 1, 12 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44297-023-00012-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44297-023-00012-x