, Volume 145, Issue 1, pp 9–18 | Cite as

Little effect of HSP90 inhibition on the quantitative wing traits variation in Drosophila melanogaster

  • Kazuo H. TakahashiEmail author
Original Paper


Drosophila wings have been a model system to study the effect of HSP90 on quantitative trait variation. The effect of HSP90 inhibition on environmental buffering of wing morphology varies among studies while the genetic buffering effect of it was examined in only one study and was not detected. Variable results so far might show that the genetic background influences the environmental and genetic buffering effect of HSP90. In the previous studies, the number of the genetic backgrounds used is limited. To examine the effect of HSP90 inhibition with a larger number of genetic backgrounds than the previous studies, 20 wild-type strains of Drosophila melanogaster were used in this study. Here I investigated the effect of HSP90 inhibition on the environmental buffering of wing shape and size by assessing within-individual and among-individual variations, and as a result, I found little or very weak effects on environmental and genetic buffering. The current results suggest that the role of HSP90 as a global regulator of environmental and genetic buffering is limited at least in quantitative traits.


Among-individual variation Cryptic genetic variation Fluctuating asymmetry Geometric morphometrics 



This work was financially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (25440212) to K.H.T.

Supplementary material

10709_2016_9940_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)


  1. Ashworth A, Lord CJ, Reis-Filho JS (2011) Genetic interactions in cancer progression and treatment. Cell 145:30–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Birdsall K, Zimmerman E, Teeter K, Gibson G (2000) Genetic variation for the positioning of wing veins in Drosophila melanogaster. Evol Dev 2:16–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bookstein FL (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen B, Wagner A (2012) Hsp90 is important for fecundity, longevity, and buffering of cryptic deleterious variation in wild fly populations. BMC Evol Biol 12:25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. David JR, Gibert P, Legout H, Petavy G, Capy P, Moreteau B (2005) Isofemale lines in Drosophila: an empirical approach to quantitative trait analysis in natural populations. Heredity 94:3–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Debat V, Milton CC, Rutherford S, Klingenberg CP, Hoffmann AA (2006) HSP90 and the quantitative variation of wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 60:2529–2538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Debat V et al (2011) Developmental stability: a major role for cyclin G in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet 7:e1002314CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Pearson Education Limited, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  9. Garelli A, Gontijo AM, Miguela V, Caparros E, Dominguez M (2012) Imaginal discs secrete insulin-like peptide 8 to mediate plasticity of growth and maturation. Science 336:579–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comp Graph Stat 5:299–314Google Scholar
  11. Jarosz DF, Lindquist S (2010) Hsp90 and environmental stress transform the adaptive value of natural genetic variation. Science 330:1820–1824CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Kellermann VM, Hoffmann AA, Sgro CM (2007) Hsp90 inhibition and the expression of phenotypic variability in the rainforest species Drosophila birchii. Biol J Linn Soc 92:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Khazaeli AA, Curtsinger JW (2010) Life history variation in an artificially selected population of Drosophila melanogaster: pleiotropy, superflies, and age-specific adaptation. Evolution 64:3409–3416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Klingenberg CP, McIntyre GS (1998) Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with procrustes methods. Evolution 52:1363–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klingenberg CP, Monteiro LR (2005) Distances and directions in multidimensional shape spaces: implications for morphometric applications. Syst Biol 54:678–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Klingenberg CP, Barluenga M, Meyer A (2002) Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 56:1909–1920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM (1979) Multivariate analysis. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Masel J, Siegal ML (2009) Robustness: mechanisms and consequences. Trends Genet 25:395–403CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Milton CC, Huynh B, Batterham P, Rutherford S, Hoffmann AA (2003) Quantitative trait symmetry independent of Hsp90 buffering: distinct modes of genetic canalization and developmental stability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:13396–13401CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Prodromou C, Roe SM, O’Brien R, Ladbury JE, Piper PW, Pearl LH (1997) Identification and structural characterization of the ATP/ADP-binding site in the Hsp90 molecular chaperone. Cell 90:65–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Queitsch C, Sangster TA, Lindquist S (2002) Hsp90 as a capacitor of phenotypic variation. Nature 417:618–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rohlf FJ (2006) Morphometrics at SUNY Stony Brook.
  23. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rohlf FJ, Slice D (1990) Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rohner N et al (2013) Cryptic variation in morphological evolution: HSP90 as a capacitor for loss of eyes in cavefish. Science 342:1372–1375CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Rutherford SL (2000) From genotype to phenotype: buffering mechanisms and the storage of genetic information. BioEssays 22:1095–1105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rutherford S, Lindquist S (1998) Hsp90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution. Nature 396:336–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sangster TA, Salathia N, Undurraga S, Milo R, Schellenberg K, Lindquist S, Queitsch C (2008) HSP90 affects the expression of genetic variation and developmental stability in quantitative traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:2963–2968CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Siegal ML, Bergman A (2002) Waddington’s canalization revisited: developmental stability and evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:10528–10532CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Stebbins CE, Russo AA, Schneider C, Rosen N, Hartl FU, Pavletich NP (1997) Crystal structure of an Hsp90-geldanamycin complex: targeting of a protein chaperone by an antitumor agent. Cell 89:239–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Takahashi KH (2013) Multiple capacitors for natural genetic variation in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Ecol 22:1356–1365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Takahashi KH (2015) Novel genetic capacitors and potentiators for the natural genetic variation of sensory bristles and their trait specificity in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Ecol 24:5561–5572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Takahashi KH, Rako L, Takano-Shimizu T, Hoffmann AA, Lee SF (2010) Effects of small Hsp genes on developmental stability and microenvironmental canalization. BMC Evol Biol 10:284CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Takahashi KH, Okada Y, Teramura K (2011) Genome-wide deficiency mapping of the regions responsible for temporal canalization of the developmental processes of Drosophila melanogaster. J Hered 102:448–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Takahashi KH, Okada Y, Teramura K (2012) Deficiency screening for genomic regions with effects on environmental sensitivity of the sensory bristles of Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 66:2878–2890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tsujino M, Takahashi KH (2012) Natural genetic variation in fluctuating asymmetry of wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster. Ecol Res 27:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsujino M, Takahashi KH (2014) Lack of response to artificial selection on developmental stability of partial wing shape components in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica 142:177–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Turner MJ, Kleeberger SR, Lightfoot JT (2005) Influence of genetic background on daily running-wheel activity differs with aging. Physiol Genomics 22:76–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Weber K, Eisman R, Higgins S, Morey L, Patty A, Tausek M, Zeng ZB (2001) An analysis of polygenes affecting wing shape on chromosome 2 in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 159:1045–1057PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitesell L, Mimnaugh EG, De Costa B, Myers CE, Neckers LM (1994) Inhibition of heat-shock protein Hsp90-Pp60(V-Src) heteroprotein complex-formation by benzoquinone ansamycins: essential role for stress proteins in oncogenic transformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:8324–8328CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Yeyati PL, van Heyningen V (2008) Incapacitating the evolutionary capacitor: Hsp90 modulation of disease. Curr Opin Genet Dev 18:264–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Zimmerman E, Palsson A, Gibson G (2000) Quantitative trait loci affecting components of wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 155:671–683PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Environmental and Life ScienceOkayama UniversityOkayama-siJapan

Personalised recommendations