Advertisement

Effects of Fruit Ripening Retardant Alar (Daminozide) on Behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster

  • Sohini Singha Roy
  • Sujay GhoshEmail author
Research Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Alar (Daminozide), a plant growth retardant, is used in different fruit orchards especially of apples and mangoes to increase the production by preventing pre harvest fruit drop, promoting colour development and increasing the storage life. In an earlier study we have demonstrated both neurotoxic and teratogenic effects of Alar in a model organism Drosophila melanogaster. As an extension of the previous work, the present study is designed to investigate the effects of Alar on larval and adult behaviour of the fly. The Results demonstrated no significant alteration in feeding rate of treated larvae, but their foraging path length was shortened considerably, indicating impaired locomotion. Moreover, the onset of their specific courtship behavior like orientation, tapping and wing vibration was significantly delayed which suggest that the treated males were less vigorous and females were less receptive than the controls. In addition, Alar treatment was associated with reduction in copulation duration and subsequent decline in Courtship Index indicating lower reproductive fitness. Collectively, the findings suggest that Alar is ethotoxic for D. melanogaster.

Keywords

Alar Drosophila melanogaster Behaviour Feeding rate Foraging path length Courtship assay 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was carried with the financial and instrumental support from UGC-UPE Phase II, DST-FIST and PURSE. We are thankful to the Head, Department of Zoology for providing necessary logistic supports.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References

  1. Aktar, S., M. Jahan, S. Alam, N.C. Mohanto, A. Arefin, A. Rahman, A. Haque, S. Himeno, K. Hossain, and Z.A. Saud. 2017. Individual and combined effects of arsenic and lead on behavioural and biochemical changes in mice. Biological Trace Element Research 177: 288–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Algarve, T.D., C.E. Assmann, T. Aigaki, and I.B.M. da Cruz. 2018. Parental and preimaginal exposure to methylmercury disrupts locomotor activity and circadian rhythm of adult Drosophila melanogaster. Drug and Chemical Toxicology.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01480545.2018.1485689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashburner, M., K.G. Golic, and R.S. Hawley. 2005. Drosophila: A laboratory handbook, 2nd ed. New York, USA: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cabral, R., K. Hakoi, T. Hoshiya, R. Hasegawa, and N. Ito. 1995. Lack of carcinogenicity of daminozide, alone or in combination with its contaminant 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, in a medium-term bioassay. Teratogenesis, Carcinogenesis, and Mutagenesis 15: 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chauhan, V., S. Srikumar, S. Aamer, M.D. Pandareesh, and A. Chauhan. 2017. Methylmercury exposure induces sexual dysfunction in male and female Drosophila melanogaster. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14: E1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Belle, J.S., M.B. Sokolowski, and A.J. Hilliker. 1993. Genetic analysis of the foraging microregion of Drosophila melanogaster. Genome 36: 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Belle, J.S., A.J. Hilliker, and M.B. Sokolowski. 1989. Genetic localization of foraging (for): A major gene for larval behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 123: 157–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ejima, A., and L.C. Griffith. 2007. Measurement of courtship behavior in Drosophila melanogaster, 4847. New York: Cold Spring Harbor protocols.Google Scholar
  9. Figueira, F.H., N. de Quadros Oliveira, L.M. de Aguiar, A.L. Escarrone, E.G. Primel, D.M. Barros, and C.E. da Rosa. 2017. Exposure to atrazine alters behaviour and disrupts the dopaminergic system in Drosophila melanogaster. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology- Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology 202: 94–102.Google Scholar
  10. Gordon, W. 2011. The true Alar story: Part I. http://www.onearth.org/blog/the-true-alar-story.
  11. Guruprasad, B.R., S.N. Hegde, and M.S. Krishna. 2008. Positive correlation between male size and remating success in few populations of D. bipectinata. Zoological Studies 47: 75–83.Google Scholar
  12. Hegde, S.N., and N.B. Krishnamurthy. 1979. Studies on mating behavior in the Drosophila bipectinata complex. Australian Journal of Zoology 27: 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirkpatrick, M., J. Benoit, W. Everett, J. Gibson, M. Rist, and N. Fredette. 2015. The effects of methylmercury exposure on behavior and biomarkers of oxidative stress in adult mice. Neurotoxicology 50: 170–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leão, M.B., P.C.C. da Rosa, C. Wagner, T.H. Lugokenski, and C.L. Dalla Corte. 2018. Methylmercury and diphenyl diselenide interactions in Drosophila melanogaster: Effects on development, behavior, and Hg levels. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 25: 21568–21576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Markow, T.A. 1985. A comparative investigation of the mating system of Drosophila hydei. Animal Behaviour 33: 775–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mueller, L.D., D.G. Folk, N. Nguyen, P. Nguyen, P. Lam, M.R. Rose, and T. Bradley. 2005. Evolution of larval foraging behaviour in Drosophila and its effects on growth and metabolic rates. Physiological Entomology 30: 262–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nazari, M., and S.N. Hegde. 2006. Effect of flouxetine on the courtship latency, mating latency and copulation duration of Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute 20: 58–63.Google Scholar
  18. Nichols, C.D., J. Becnel, and U.B. Pandey. 2012. Methods to assay Drosophila behavior. Journal of Visualized Experiments 61: e3795.Google Scholar
  19. Pereira, H.S., and M.B. Sokolowski. 1993. Mutations in the larval foraging gene affect adult locomotory behavior after feeding in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90: 5044–5046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Riedl, J., and M. Louis. 2012. Behavioral neuroscience: Crawling is a no-brainer for fruit fly larvae. Current Biology 22: R867–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roy, S., M. Begum, and S. Ghosh. 2018. Exploration of teratogenic and genotoxic effects of fruit ripening retardant Alar (Daminozide) on model organism Drosophila melanogaster. Interdisciplinary Toxicology 11: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarangi, M., A. Nagarajan, S. Dey, J. Bose, and A. Joshi. 2016. Evolution of increased larval competitive ability in Drosophila melanogaster without increased larval feeding rate. Journal of Genetics 95: 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sokolowski, M.B. 1985. Genetics and ecology of Drosophila melanogaster larval foraging and pupation behaviour. Journal of Insect Physiology 31: 857–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wong, R., M.D.W. Piper, B. Wertheim, and L. Partridge. 2009. Quantification of food intake in Drosophila. PLoS ONE 4: e6063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Zoological Society, Kolkata, India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cytogenetics and Genomics Research Unit, Department of ZoologyUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations