Drosophila pp 119-138

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 420)

EMS Screens

From Mutagenesis to Screening and Mapping
  • Christian Bökel


The success of Drosophila as a genetic model organism is based on the efficient generation, recovery, and identification of new mutations. Various agents have been used to induce de novo DNA lesions. However, the use of mutagenic alkylating agents, especially ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS), has become a standard approach for mutagenesis that has been succesfully used in the classic forward genetic screens that have defined the field of developmental genetics, as well as in many alternative screening schemes that have since been developed. In this chapter, a basic EMS mutagenesis protocol is introduced, and examples for the fly crossing schemes used in several different types of screen are presented. In addition, some new genome sequence-based approaches are discussed that have alleviated the notoriously difficult molecular mapping of EMS induced point mutations. Together these protocols should allow researchers as yet unfamiliar with Drosophila genetics to take advantage of all the benefits of this mutagenesis method, which include its wide and largely unbiased coverage of the genome, the high mutation frequency, and the variety of null, hypomorphic, conditional (e.g., temperature sensitive), or domain specific mutations that can be caused by EMS treatment.

Key Words

Drosophila EMS forward genetics genetic screens mutagenesis mutation mapping 


  1. 1.
    Lewis, E. B. and Bacher, F. (1968) Methods of feeding ethyl methane sulfonate (EMS) to Drosophila males. Drosophila Inf. Service 43, 193.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashburner, M., Golic, K. G., and Hawley, R. S. (2005) Drosophila: A Laboratory Handbook, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, pp. 207–312.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bentley, A., MacLennan, B., Calvo, J., and Dearolf, C. R. (2000) Targeted recovery of mutations in Drosophila. Genetics 156, 1169–1173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pastink, A., Heemskerk, E., Nivard, M. J., van Vliet, C. J., and Vogel, E. W. (1991) Mutational specificity of ethyl methanesulfonate in excision-repairproficient and-deficient strains of Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Gen. Genet. 229, 213–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winkler, S., Schwabedissen, A., Backasch, D., et al. (2005) Target-selected mutant screen by TILLING in Drosophila. Genome Res. 15, 718–723.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vogel, E. and Natarajan, A. T. (1979) 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. 62, 51–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miklos, G. L. and Rubin, G. M. (1996) The role of the genome project in determining gene function: insights from model organisms. Cell 86, 521–529.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grigliatti, T. (1998) Mutagenesis, in Drosophila: A practical approach, D. B. Roberts, (ed.). IRL Press, Oxford. pp. 55–83.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nissani, M. (1977) On the interpretation of mutagenically induced mosaicism in Drosophila. Genetics 86, 779–787.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindsley, D. L. and Zimm, G. G. (1992) The genome of Drosophila melanogaster. Academic Press. San Diego.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Till, B., Reynolds, S., Greene, E., et al. (2003) Large-scale discovery of induced point mutations with high-throughput TILLING. Genome Res. 13, 524–530.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grether, M. E., Abrams, J. M., Agapite, J., White, K., and Steller, H. (1995) The head involution defective gene of Drosophila melanogaster functions in programmed cell death. Genes Dev. 9, 1694–1708.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    St Johnston, D. (2002) The art and design of genetic screens: Drosophila melanogaster. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3, 176–188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellen, H. J., Levis, R. W., Liao, G., et al. (2004) The BDGP gene disruption project: single transposon insertions associated with 40% of Drosophila genes. Genetics 167, 761–781.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rorth, P. (1996) A modular misexpression screen in Drosophila detecting tissuespecific phenotypes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 12,418–12,422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parks, A., Cook, K., Belvin, M., et al. (2004) Systematic generation of highresolution deletion coverage of the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Nat. Genet. 36, 288–292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryder, E., Blows, F., Ashburner, M., et al. (2004) The DrosDel collection: a set of P-element insertions for generating custom chromosomal aberrations in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 167, 797–813.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Franc, N. C., Heitzler, P., Ezekowitz, R. A., and White, K. (1999) Requirement for croquemort in phagocytosis of apoptotic cells in Drosophila. Science 284, 1991–1994.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berger, J., Suzuki, T., Senti, K. A., Stubbs, J., Schaffner, G., and Dickson, B. J. (2001) Genetic mapping with SNP markers in Drosophila. Nat. Genet. 29, 475–481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin, S. G., Dobi, K. C., and St Johnston, D. (2001) A rapid method to map mutations in Drosophila. Genome Biol. 2, RESEARCH0036.1–0036.12.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zipperlen, P., Nairz, K., Rimann, I., et al. (2005) A universal method for automated gene mapping. Genome Biol. 6, R19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stephens, M., Sloan, J. S., Robertson, P. D., Scheet, P., and Nickerson, D. A. (2006) Automating sequence-based detection and genotyping of SNPs from diploid samples. Nat. Genet. 38, 375–381.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Bökel
    • 1
  1. 1.BIOTECTU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations