Talk:Drosophila melanogaster

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andrn10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 February 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Squirrel1772, Ella1772, Oak1772, Hsmit1772, K.ogle1772, WillH1772, TeaTime1772. Peer reviewers: LEW1772.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurenfasth, CatherineElba, AbigailKGreene, Jbailey2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Genetic similarities to humans

Quote: "Genetically speaking, people and fruit flies are very similar. About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues." 50-60% shared genes does not, genetically speaking, make humans and fruit flies very similar! Recommend deletion or re-wording.

I agree, I'm looking for a reference to the genetically similar to humans.., can somebody provide one please?

Here is a genome comparison tool you can play around with: Taxonomy Plot. In the page I linked to, you can see a search for human proteins that have similar corresponding proteins in Drosophila and the mouse. BLAST is a standard algorithm for comparing protein sequence similarity. I set the BLAST sequence algorithm cutoff high (3000) so that only the most conserved proteins are shown. Note that while there are 285 mouse proteins with BLAST scores above 3000, there are only 6 for Drosophila. The one gene that I selected in the plot (the circled diamond) codes for a large cell surface protein that seems to function in cell adhesion and/or cell growth regulation (it is called "FAT" because mutant larvae in Drosophila had over-grown tissues and were "fat"). If you go to the bottom of the page and click on "5240" you can see the protein sequence comparison of the Drosophila and human FAT proteins (32% identity). Note all of the sequence positions where the human and Drosophila sequences differ. Go back to the first page and click on "18905". Notice how the mouse and human FAT proteins are very similar (81% identity). Compared to a mouse, Drosophila is much less genetically similar to humans. If you did a similar comparison of human, Drosophila and a bacterium, you would conclude that Drosophila is much more genetically similar to humans than a bacterium.

I think the question is, is it accurate and important to say that fruit flies are genetically similar to humans? I mean, if we were to construct a list of "animals that are genetically similar to humans", where would fruit flies rank? Would it be safe to assume that they're way down on the list, next to every mammal in the world and a good number of other animals? Would it be better to say that the genetic similarities that fruit flies do have with humans makes them suitable (in some ways) for disease studies? FireWorks 21:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It is important to explain why it has been useful to study flies. In evolutionary terms, about three quarters of a billion years ago, all of the types of genes required to produce a complex multicellular organism started to become available in a common ancestor to flies and humans. Flies and humans are both examples of the many types of complex multicellular organisms that can be produced. Many of the key developmental processes that are used to produce any complex multicellular organism can be understood by study of the genes that control development of flies. The body segmentation control genes provide a good example. In contrast, study of the genes of bacterial cells will tell you very little about how to make a multicellular organism. It is true that study of fly genes has been useful for understanding some human diseases, but the study of mammals such as mice is more useful for the study of many human diseases and some developmental processes. For example, you could learn very little about the basic genetic controls for human sex determination by studying flies, but mice use a very similar system. Rather than just throw out phrases like "closely related" and "distantly related" you have to give some specific examples. --JWSchmidt 22:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm editing the same article on Finnish Wikipedia and I was able to gather some references for the statements, but the figures I got were pretty different: The disease-gene homology between man and fly (according to the Reiter et al article cited here also), is 77% and not 75% as stated in Drosophila melanogaster. The overall similarity of man and fly, which in here is said to be 44% I changed to about 20% in the Finnish version and referenced it (very poorly) using Venter's human sequence paper, which states the number of human-fly orthologous genes they found. Then I just divided the number with the total gene number to get the presentage. The 50% protein homology to mammals I couldn't source. Any suggestions on that (or disagreement on my changed numbers)? I might change the numbers here also at some point and reference them, if there are no objections. I'm only a bit unsure, if these kind of exact numbers or presentages are needed at all. --Albval 10:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vision

I find it strange that so much article space is devoted to Drosophila vision. One could justify writing in-depth accounts of fly olfaction, reproduction, etc., but there is little mention of them. I would guess that the author of the vision passage chose to write so much about that topic because it was his area of expertise, and he felt it was important. I'm not recommending that the passage on vision be deleted, I just want to point out that it is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article. Deadcorpse 21:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above. In fact, it seems the vision section should be an article in it's own right. What I find glaringly absent is any history of Drosophila as a genetic model system. No mention of Thomas Hunt Morgan who identified the first mutant:

In a pedigree culture of Drosophila which had been running for nearly one year through a considerable number of generations, a male apperared with white eyes. The normal flies have brilliant red eyes. Thomas H. Morgan, 1910

And lets not forget the paper by Morgans students Alfred Sturtevant and Calvin Bridges The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity based on their work with flies. Also worthy of mention is all the pioneering work from Edward Lewis in the genetic mechanisms of development, again using the power of drosophila genetics. This was recognised in 1995 when Ed Lewis, Christiane Nusslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus were awarded the Nobel Prize. All these events should be mentioned since they had a huge impact on how biologists attack a scientific problem.David D. 20:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I suspect part of the reason the author feels vision is significant may be that Drosophila eyes in particular make a good model for development. Sorry I don't have a citation, but I remember more than once both during undergraduate genetics and during genetics seminars hearing about developmental biologists using eye deformities as a convenient way of visualising developmental defects. I guess because they're so big, and so precisely patterened. Still, the amount of detail there now is likely a bit more than necessary. Adrian J. Hunter 09:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with these comments, considering olfaction is such an important and well-studied part of D. melanogaster behaviour, there needs to be a section devoted to it in the article. I will look into finding some appropriate references. Nawalani (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Each microvillus is 1 mm to 1.5 mm in length and 50 nm in diameter."

Shouldn't that length be 1 to 1.5 micrometre, instead of millimetre? It conforms to the Microvillus article. Amorim Parga 08:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Mating

There are two sections that discuss mating rituals, one in the Life Cycle section and one in its own section, which has been tagged for lack of references. I suggest that the two be merged in the Life Cycle section, or the latter deleted due to lack of verification. --Digitalgadget 05:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tinman gene removal

I believe this example is too specific. (it was removed without explanation and replaced). Perhaps using it as an example rather than the way it is right now where it has no context. I'll do this when I have a chance, unless there are strenuous objections. Flyguy649 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sequencing year / Contradict tag

Why does the article state that the Drosophila genome was sequenced in 1998 although the referenced sequence paper came out two years later, in 2000? Is that a mistake or am I just missing something? --Albval 10:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue is the reason why I tagged the article with {{contradict}}. --B.d.mills 06:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked on PubMed, and the first publication of the Drosophila genome was in 2000, although it has since of course been improved upon. I'll change the article now. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

External Link

Would this article, Maintenance of a Drosophila Laboratory: General Procedures, be useful to add to the external links section? Drosophila is not my area of interest, thought it best to ask. Zzorse 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. So although the info in this link is useful to Drosophilists, people do not need to find that at Wikipedia. In fact, most Drosophila labs would probably have that protocol (or more likely, "Laboratory Culture of Drosophila," which it is adapted from; our lab does). Flyguy649^talk_contribs 00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please check time for eggs to hatch at 25 degrees C

In this edit, an anon changed "The eggs, which are about 0.5 millimetres long, hatch after 12–15 h (at 25 °C (77 °F))" to "...hatch after 20-22 h..." without comment. I've assumed this is just experimentation and reverted, but could someone kindly confirm the true duration, ideally using one of the Ashburner sources? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussing a split

Nope I don't think a split is a good idea currently. The article stands at 27kb, which would shrink a bit with some copyediting I am sure, and is smaller than most other biological Featured Articles. The vision section pertains to this organism and as WP is not paper, can be reduplicated elsewhere. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

eye colour

Where is the genome that decide wich eye colour the fly will get?  The great Darren shan fan  12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Eye colour in flies is somewhat complex. The colour is determined by the levels of red and brown pigments in the pigment granules within the eye. Both pigments require the product of the white gene (on the X chromosome) to get into the pigment granules. The red pigments also require the product of the brown gene (on chromosome 2), while the brown pigments require the product of the scarlet gene (on chromosome 3). Many other genes (found on all chromosomes) affect the production or transport of these pigments. There is a good explanation of this at this blog link. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 13:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fruit Flies Experiment

What is the best way to capture fruit flies without hurting them, so that I can study there life cycle in an experiment?--HomeschooledGenius (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fruit flies (at least many Drosophila species) eat the yeast growing on rotting fruit. You can put some ripe banana in a cup or bowl covered in plastic wrap with small holes poked into it. The flies will smell the fruit and get in, but they aren't so good at getting out. After you get a few in there, the females will lay eggs. You can probably get rid of your captives and transfer the banana to some other convenient container with some fresh banana. In 10-14 days or so, you'll have a new generation of flies. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... that'll help a lot. --HomeschooledGenius (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mutant strains?

I think this article should include a section dealing with all the natural mutant strains of D. melanogaster, with respect to body colour, wings, hair, eye colour, etc, with images. Also artificial mutants should be mentioned.Proquence (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

taxonomy

Is it worth mentioning that there is a debate as to whether the species should be renamed Sophophora melanogaster and that there is a petition at the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make the species the type specimen for the genus in order to retain the name at Drosophila melanogaster? Info at Dalton, R (2009) "A Fly by any other name" Nature 457 (7228): 368 doi:10.1038/457368a . Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A more recent article on the discussion - Nature 464, 825 (2010) | doi:10.1038/464825a Average Earthman (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

drosophila sex chromosomes

This seems to be an important aspect of the species. The normal XX female and XY male, but also XXY female etc... This is probably significant since non-disjunction is common and it results in different sexes(as compared with human non-disjunction) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.180.167 (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Drosophila melanogaster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I'm reviewing this article for GA sweeps, where we look through older GAs. This will be a two-part review, the first is a skim. On this, I noticed the following problems:

• No barelinks for references; all refs need the title, publisher, etc.

• Done.

• The lead should be expanded.
• Physical appearance unreferenced.

• I've converted the EL to a proper reference. The section could use another reference or two, though.

• There are some references in MLA format, put at the end of the sentence. These all need to be converted to wiki format.

• Looking in the last paragraph of the section on History of use in genetic analysis, I couldn't exactly figure out what the "(Freman 214)" bit referred to. Other than that, the MLA references have been converted to the more conventional WP format. Emw2012 (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• History of use in genetic analysis is mostly unreferenced.
• Genetic markers unreferenced.
• Development mostly unreferenced.
• Behavioral genetics and neuroscience.

I'll give you five days to show good progress on this, then I will do a more detailed review. If no progress is made I will delist it. Wizardman 02:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I like that the MLA issues were handled, that was nice. That being said, there hasn't really been any work on the references in terms of adding them, so I'm going to delist this now. There's a great foundation if you want to take it back to GAN down the road at least. Wizardman 15:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to help with the references, there seems to be whole sections with only 1 or 2 refs. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion, sense there needs to be many more refs would to get rid or the further reading and use those as refs if they were used for info. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential renaming of species

Just FYI to the maintainers of this page: the scientific name of this species my officially change.

http://www.iczn.org/content/drosophila-melanogaster-opinion-issued-case-3407

Either way, it looks like there is some interesting new information about this species that needs to be included in the article.

– VisionHolder « talk » 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see what happens. I suspect even if the taxonomists change the name, all the geneticists and others in the field won't. WP:COMMONNAME may apply, so if the species is renamed Sophophora melanogaster, it may be appropriate to leave the main article at Drosophila melanogaster. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Significance to hospitality

Besides its obvious importance to biology, this species is also significant to the hospitality industry as it is a common pest that especially infests bars. Would it be appropriate to add a section explaining this and providing additional information, such as the causes of infestation, their management etc? Funkiyak (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Funkiyak :-)

I don't see why not, but please try to find a reliable source to cite. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

weight

no weight of Drosophila in article.--Ll0l00l (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to replace the stereo image of the eye

The current picture is in a file format (PNG) that cannot be displayed by programs to view stereo image pairs, it contains a black and white division line that should not be there and it's also asymmetrical (the part on the left is larger than the part on the right).

I propose to replace it with this one. Reason: it is an actual stereo pair, where the left half contains only information for the right eye and the right half contains only information for the left eye. Also, it is in a format (JPG) that programs to view stereo pairs with shutterglasses or head-mounted displays support just by changing the extension from JPG to JPS. Devil Master (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi everyone, I fixed up the first paragraph of the Introduction section, as there were many run-on sentences that were a little unclear. I tried to make the language sound more professional. I was going to edit the second paragraph as well.. But it's a run-on sentence that contains some information at the end that I think is not within the scope of this article. Not quite sure what to do with it. I propose that the second paragraph just include the following information:

Flies belonging to the family Tephritidae are also called fruit flies, which can lead to confusion, particularly in Australia and South Africa, where the term fruit fly is used to refer to members of the Tephritidae family.

Any thoughts? Nawalani (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of Genes

The article lists a number of around 15.000, but the link to the NCBI says 15.581.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=drosophila%20melanogaster

My proposal is to (a) use that number and (b) also make a direct link to that entry from within the article. Any objections to that? 62.47.246.47 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Where did they come from

It would be good to make it clear to original habitat and geographic distribution of the species. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong image – or caption?

Do the eggs really look like the "winged" cocoons (strange coincidence)? or this a mistake like those "ant eggs"?

Does [stage 13 (e)] really compare with [this]? --Empro2 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Polygamy section

This verbose new section, added by SLUlax414, can probably be synthesized in a couple of sentences and with properly formatted sources per templates in WP:CITE and details readily available on the web. It doesn't impress as important enough to justify its own section, but rather could be stated briefly under "Behavior and learning". Also, WP:NOTJOURNAL should apply. I'm putting it here for discussion and revision. --Zefr (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text and source format below

Both male and female D. melanogaster act polygamously. Polygamy is the practice of having multiple partners at the same time. This form of sexual selection has various effects on male and female flies. In both males and females, polygamy results in a decrease in evening activity compared to virgin flies. Evening activity is further decreased in polygamous male flies more than monogamous ones; however, no such change in activity level is observed in females. This can be explained by comparing the importance of sexual dimorphism and reproductive success in flies. The reproductive success of males and females varies, due to the fact that a female only needs to mate once to reach maximum fertility. With each successive partner, it is no different than mating with the same partner, and therefore the females experience no difference in evening activity between polygamous and monogamous individuals. For males, however, mating with multiple partners increases their reproductive success by increasing the genetic diversity of their offspring. There is a clear advantage to polygamy in males compared to females. The difference in even activity between polygamous and monogamous male flies can be explained with courtship. For polygamous flies, their reproductive success increases by having offspring with multiple partners, and therefore they spend more time and energy on courting multiple females. In monogamous flies, however, they only need to court one female, so they expend less energy doing so. While it requires more energy for male flies to court multiple females, the overall reproductive benefits it produces has kept polygamy as the preponderant sexual choice. It has been shown that the mechanism that affects courtship behavior in Drosophila is controlled by the oscillator neurons DN1s and LNDs. Oscillation of the DN1 neurons was found to be effected by socio-sexual interactions, and is connected to mating-related decrease of evening activity.

References for proposed polygamy section

• Combine the first and second sentences, as they would flow better as one.

• Is the first source only used for the first two sentences? If so, I feel a source that is not a research article could do the job just as well. However, the article used also mentions how polygamy allows for the evolution of optimal sex-specific selection in respect to certain genes. I feel this could be elaborated on.

• The third sentence states this form of sexual selection has various effects, but only one effect is mentioned after, this effect being the decrease in evening activity. The rest of the info from the second source goes on to explain why this happens, so I do not view the reasons presented after as separate effects from this selection.

• The fourth and fifth sentences can be combined, as this would probably sound better together. I suggest “Polygamy results in a decrease in evening activity compared to virgin flies, more so in males than females.”

• Also in reference to the second source, the info itself confuses me. You state that evening activity is decreased in polygamous flies, and even more in male flies. This is explained by the fact that male flies want to mate with as many females as possible, but wouldn’t that mean they would be more active? How are you defining activity?

• Add link to sexual dimorphism, as this term will most likely confuse readers

• Would suggest changing “With each successive partner, it is no different than mating with the same partner, and therefore the females experience no difference in evening activity between polygamous and monogamous individuals” to “Mating with multiple partners provides no advantage over mating with one partner, and therefore females exhibit no difference in evening activity between polygamous and monogamous individuals.”

• Take out “There is a clear advantage to polygamy in males compared to females” as it does not provide factual info, or rather it just sounds opinionated.

• “Difference in even activity” change to “Difference in evening activity”

• “In monogamous flies, however, they only need to court one female, so they expend less energy doing so” change to “Monogamous flies only court one female, and expend less energy doing so.”

• Change preponderant to “preferred” or something along those lines.

• All info from source 2 just seems stretched out, like it could be summarized in half the sentences it currently is.

• Info from source 3 is definitely too scientific sounding, needs to be in simpler language. Remember, non-scientific people read Wikipedia too. Pubh101 (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Evo1995 (talk)evo1995 commentsEvo1995 (talk) Over all, the article was easy to follow and quite interesting to learn how polygamy is practiced in different species of animals. Your section emphasizes sexual dimorphism leading to reproductive success, which plays a great role in the evolutionary history and future of these flies.

I believe you did a great job correlating genetic variation in the offspring of the fruit flies with sexual selection, since sexual selection plays a major rule in the reproductive success of these flies. You could expand a little more on the fact that males still prefer expending more energy courting multiple females, and why they chose to do so if it is energetically costly. But I can infer from your article that it is because reproductive success over rides the cost of courtship.

I found no grammatical or spelling errors in the article, over all it is well organized. You could also expand the section regarding their neuronal function relating to their mating activity. Maybe how their neurons have evolved to support this activity over time if you find information. Lastly, you could create a new heading and discuss in more detail about their neuronal activity affecting their behavior.

Evo1995 (talk)evo1995Evo1995 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Revised version of my previous addition to this section:

Both male and female D. melanogaster act polygamously (having multiple sexual partners at the same time).[1] In both males and females, polygamy results in a decrease in evening activity compared to virgin flies, more so in males than females.[1] Evening activity consists of the activities that the flies participate in other than mating and finding partners, such as finding food.[2] The reproductive success of males and females varies, due to the fact that a female only needs to mate once to reach maximum fertility.[2] Mating with multiple partners provides no advantage over mating with one partner, and therefore females exhibit no difference in evening activity between polygamous and monogamous individuals.[2] For males, however, mating with multiple partners increases their reproductive success by increasing the genetic diversity of their offspring.[2] This benefit of genetic diversity is an evolutionary advantage because it increases the chance that some of the offspring will have traits that increase their fitness in their environment.

The difference in evening activity between polygamous and monogamous male flies can be explained with courtship. For polygamous flies, their reproductive success increases by having offspring with multiple partners, and therefore they spend more time and energy on courting multiple females.[2] On the other hand, monogamous flies only court one female, and expend less energy doing so.[2] While it requires more energy for male flies to court multiple females, the overall reproductive benefits it produces has kept polygamy as the preferred sexual choice.[2]

It has been shown that the mechanism that affects courtship behavior in Drosophila is controlled by the oscillator neurons DN1s and LNDs.[3] Oscillation of the DN1 neurons was found to be effected by socio-sexual interactions, and is connected to mating-related decrease of evening activity.[3]

In response to Pubh101: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed most of the grammatical and structural changes that you recommended. I elaborated further on what evening activity consists of to clear that up for the readers. However, you recommended changing the last few sentences to sound simpler. I made no such changes as these sentences were added for the purpose of explaining to the more scientifically literate readers how the mechanism of polygamy is controlled in Drosophila.

In response to Evo1995: Thank you for your comments. You suggested that I add more information to the last portion of the paragraph. However, adding more information to this section, which is already very complex, would increase confusion of most readers so I have decided to keep these sentences brief and concise. I will look for more information on the neuronal activity of Drosophila as it relates to polygamy and if I find any further relevant information I will be sure to add it to this section.

In response to Dr. Fowler-Finn: Thank you for your comments. I have adjusted the grammar and structure of the paragraph as suggested. Also, I added citations after each sentence and an explanation on what evening activity consists of. I also expanded on the benefits of polygamy for male fruit flies.

SLUlax414 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

New edits

There was really only one spot that needed to be fixed, and it was a comma splice. This article is very well developed, well organized and well cited. There are some sentences within the "Lifecycle and Reproduction" section that do not have citations after each sentence. That is really the only thing that I can see that needs some work on, but I know that can be hard since the information probably was already there previous to your contributions. You did a really great job connecting sexual selection to polygamy. Good work! Anon330 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a grammatical error in the 'Misconceptions' section of the article that needs to be fixed. The word 'be' is missing from the last line of first paragraph in the said section. Overall the article is very well-developed. Organism1772 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for future edits

I could not edit your article since yours is removed in the actual page, so I am going to place my suggestions and edits on this talk page. Your article is well-organized and flows well. For the last paragraph, what I would suggest is that I would link the word “socio-sexual interaction” with Wikipedia page or place the definition of it so that people can exactly know what it is. Also, I suggest to add what DN1s and LNDs are even though you are already saying that they are oscillator neurons. You explain about what DN1 neuron is, but not about what LND is. I recommend to put briefly for the definition so that it is not too technical. In addition, I would add “for females,” in front of the sentence, “mating with multiple partners provides no advantage over mating with one partner, and therefore females exhibit no difference in evening activity between polygamous and monogamous individuals.” Without “for females,” it sounds like males mating with multiple partners have no benefits either. The overall information was good, and there was nothing to change for structures or grammars. Jihyek13 (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Polygamy Addition

I have added my reviewed and revised version of polygamy to the article. I have rephrased the section and removed some unnecessary information. I hope that this addition will be concise and informative enough to remain on the page. I appreciate all of the feedback and criticism that I have received and thank everyone for their time and work! 24.107.15.74 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sperm

"Compared to these and numerous other exaggerated sexual traits, fruit-fly sperm are probably the most extreme example in the animal kingdom," finds Luepold. In the case of Drosophila bifurca, they are around 20 times longer than the male itself and thus transmitted as tightly coiled balls.

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-fruit-sperm-giant.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature18005.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankot (talk • contribs) 13:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

add chromosome number on main chart

Drosophila Chromosomes: In Drosophila melanogaster there are 4 homologous pairs of chromosomes: 2 pairs of large autosomes, ( one slightly smaller than the other pair), 1 pair of very small autosomes, and a pair of sex chromosomes. Females normally have two X chromosomes; males have one X and one tiny Y chromosome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410D:3400:C5A9:D65A:9D40:AB41 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drosophila melanogaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5nDbhU1QX?url=https://dlib.stanford.edu:6521/text1/dd-ill/insekten6.pdf to https://dlib.stanford.edu:6521/text1/dd-ill/insekten6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting of Pupa Macro Image

I had added a macro image of Fruit Fly Pupa with the fly still inside the pupa. This change was reverted by Zefr on Oct 31, 2017. The reason being "low value". Its not clear to me how this is of low value. The image is of great quality and secondly, the image is of great value to the article itself as it provides detailed photographic information on the fruit fly pupa. So need consensus from folks if this picture can be restored in the article. The image I want to add is shown here.

Fruit Fly Pupa

Sanjay Acharya (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drosophila melanogaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815020557/http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu/ to http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drosophila melanogaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207233537/http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=9&id=87 to http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=9&id=87
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924034953/http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~pfmjv/InsectCognition/science_300_495.fly-flight.pdf to http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~pfmjv/InsectCognition/science_300_495.fly-flight.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Flightless strain

It's not mentioned in the model organism section that a flightless strain was developed and is the one most often used in labs. This was done both to make it easier to work with them, and as a control/indicators (like albinism in lab rodents) – if you start getting fruit flies with wings in your stock, your stock has been contaminated by genes from outside your model group, like a fly that came in on your clothing. I would think there's some good source material on this out there. These flightless ones are also bred for the pet trade, as food for small reptiles and amphibians (usually supplied in a tube of a 100 or so with a yeast-based food paste).

Genetic Mutations - Push from Wiki Storm Edit a Thon

Hello, as part of Salem College's Wiki Strom Edit a thon to advance women in the field of science and technology and Wiki Education project. We will be making a series of edits both in content and adding pictures with the help of some expert editor. Suggestions and improvements are welcome, there will be quite a bit expanded on this topic. Thank you all for such great content that has already been added! Rdinws (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 We also expect quite a few improvements and understand if anything does not meet Wiki's standard that it should be improved or removed. Thanks! Rdinws (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for use in laboratories

Although it may be true for the small number of mutations listed in the following section, the fact stated on the Drosophila page stating that male fruit flies do not show meiotic recombination is false. For the trait vermillion eyes (which is simply a brighter red than the wild-type red), the males are in fact the only ones to show recombinance. It takes two generations to see this trait appear when white virgin females are mated with vermillion eyed males. The first generation will show all females will have red (wild type) eyes and all of the males will have white eyes. This also displays the fact that vermillion eyes is a sex-linked recessive trait. When the resulting males and females from F1 are mated, only 1/4 of their offspring is predicted to have vermillion eyes, all of which are male. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that males do not show meiotic recombination. MUTATION INDUCTION IN THE MALE RECOMBINATION STRAINS OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER> Morgan.proulx (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Aggression

1st: Food-based: The content was relevant, however, the sentences should be more concise. I understand it is the topic, but there is excessive use of the word aggression that can be limited.

"The level of aggression associated with food is simply derived from the amount of food available and is independent of any social interactions between the males" --> "In relation to food, aggression levels is dependent on the amount of food available." I think you can also separate these sentences since it is long. - Is there a specific threshold? Or, does this threshold vary between locations? I also think the last sentence could be moved to right after "the independent of social interaction." - the territorial marker is slightly confusing - Or, you should not that this was for when competition was still high (limited food)

2nd Paragraph: You should double check the subject-verb agreement as well as condense your sentences.

3rd Paragraph: I think you can remove the first sentence because sleep should connect back moreso aggression rather than survival and reproduction The sleep paragraph does not seem relevant to the topic. Aggression is shown to be affected in one sentence. However, the majority of the paragraph moreso illustrates the functional role of sleep to survival and reproduction. However, the topic sentence of this section was detailed "another behavior for survival and reproduction is aggression."

Overall: It would be better if it detailed subtopics to be clearer. If this section is Aggression, then subtopics should be used to clearly explain it such as: Topic: Aggression Subtopic: Behavior: -Explain the overall relevance and specify the behavior, - talk about behavior in response to the stimuli (what supports vs against, sleep deprived - reduced aggression) Subtopic: Neuroanatomy/Genetic/Molecular Mechanism -- specific genes relating to aggression (i.e. auditory) -- octopamine agonist signaling

OR: 1. Food 2. Hearing 3. Sleep Deprivation

Furthermore, this section seems to revolve around the survival and reproduction more than aggression. This can be seen with the beginning of the 1st paragraph and majority of the 3rd. Section should contain more information just related to aggression. Hnguyc (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Responding to peer review

Thank you for your detailed feedback. I wasn't aware that it seemed like 3 separate topics until you addressed it. Andrn10 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Responded to Hnguyc comments; edits made are: - made the paragraphs more focused on aggression as the central idea - added an introductory section on aggression - added more sensory modalities to show how aggression is mediated. Andrn10 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Immunity - subsections to add

The current section on immunity is a decent overview, but is quite bare bones on a topic that has commanded a great deal of attention including one of Drosophila’s coveted Nobel prizes.

It could be useful for this section to be expanded. Below is a list of suggestions for subsections:

1. Humoral immunity i) Toll signalling ii) Imd iii) Antimicrobial peptides and other humoral effectors iv) JAK-STAT pathway in stress responses v) JNK signalling and apoptosis vi) The melanization response

2. Cellular immunity i) cell types and roles in immune responses ii) wound clotting and healing iii) roles of immune blood cells in physiology (e.g. wing inflation, phagoptosis, anti-tumor activity) Crawdaunt (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Crawdaunt. Wikipedia style guide recommends that articles be kept under 8000 words, and the D. melanogaster article is at 10000 words. The immunity section is over 10% of the article. I think the immunity section would benefit from being more concise, that we detailed descriptions of genetic pathways be moved onto the pages for these pathways. It will also be easier to maintain and keep the info current.

I propose that section toll pathway be moved to Toll-like receptor.

I propose that section lmd pathway be moved to lmd pathway.

I propose that section JAK-STAT signaling be moved to JAK-STAT.

Genetic pathways can still be described here on the D. melanogaster page, but with a link to read more.

Any objection? Or recommendation of other sections to move? Thanks. The Tuthill lab (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that makes perfect sense. Indeed the TLR article and Imd pathway article already has an "in Drosophila" section, so a fusion of the unique information here into what's already there would be good. For JAK-STAT, there is no current section on Drosophila JAK-STAT, and that article is already quite long itself... but not 8000 words.

Perhaps a new section "In Drosophila" could be added to JAK-STAT? But this would require an agreement from the broader JAK-STAT community. Toll/Imd were first characterized in Drosophila, creating a precedent for Drosophila-specific presence in those articles. JAK-STAT is just an immune/stress pathway shared by animals, including Drosophila (which naturally has well-characterized JAK-STAT regulation and responses). But there could be a WP:UNDUE concern to add a section highlighting JAK-STAT in Drosophila, but not other model organisms. Have any thoughts on this?

Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Good points. Looking again, the JAK-STAT section on the Drosophila melanogaster article is actually succinct, and it is appropriate and easiest to leave the information here. Thanks for your insight. The Tuthill lab (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Great. I'll take a look at some point to reduce the Toll/Imd section here to one section on NF-kB immunity, with linkouts directing readouts to the main articles where Drosophila-specific information is already present. Might take me a bit as lots on my plate, but will keep this in mind and poke at it when I find the time. Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That sounds great. Thank you very much for your offer to tighten-up the immunity section. The Tuthill lab (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Transgenesis

Hello,

How does generating transgenic flies contribute to scientific advances?

Thanks, EGN1772 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC) EGN1772 3/4/2020

Vision

While reading the section 'Vision', I noticed that it did not mention anything about the white-eyed genotype and the blindness that occurs with it. Is this somewhere else in the page that I overlooked or should we consider adding information about it? Frostj1772 (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Brick red?

Ambiguous. My entire city is cream colored bricks. Google reveals spectrum of "red" bricks, perhaps scarlet, crimson or bright/dark? 2603:6000:D700:194D:8925:5A88:3ACB:E64D (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree that that is ambiguous. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Ceramide kinase

Hello @Martin Gühmann: I added the text. I took it from Zhu & Han.

This effect is probably due to a reduced level of proapoptotic ceramide in the CDase mutant, given that a mutation in ceramide kinase (Cerk) causes the opposite effect (28).

Is this not correct? Invasive Spices (talk) 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Invasive Spices: That's what they wrote and that's everything else than clear prose. That's why I think you can't just cite a review. According to Dasgupta et al. (2009):

Ceramide kinase (CERK), a recently cloned lipid kinase, phosphorylates ceramide to ceramide 1–phosphate (C-1-P), thereby decreasing ceramide levels (13, 14).

So the effect is if you knock out or knock down of ceramide kinase you end up with more ceramide in the system, and in the knockdown mutant (it just has less than 2% of ceramide kinase than the wild type) you have indeed cell death of photoreceptor cells. But not because ceramide kinase made more ceramide, but because ceramide kinase did not remove as much ceramide. So let's see what you wrote:

Ceramide kinase is found to increase proapoptotic ceramide activity by Dasgupta et al. 2009, and this increases photoreceptor cell apoptotic turnover.

The first piece should be: "Ceramide kinase is found to the amount of ceramide." I don't see why Dasgupta et al. 2009 need to be mentioned in the text. It is not that we compare the results from different people, discuss their results specifically, or that we have to attribute a figure to them. The other thing is that Dasgupta et al. 2009 did not show that the increased ceramide causes cell death. In fact the cells do not die in mutant flies kept in the dark, so it does not make the cells die, directly. But it must have to do something the with screwing up the phototransduction cascade. In fact, these mutant flies are blind. Then the report of Dasgupta et al. (2009) gets a bit murky, as far as I can see is that ceramide accumulates in the cell membrane and disturbs the distribution of Pip₂ and may also influence the PLC. However, they did not try to figure out what actually causes cell death.

Just another note, I wouldn't call apoptopic turnover either, because that implies some cycle and thus cell regeneration, for that I would like to see a paper.

Obviously, that too much ceramide leads to cell death with light is just some pathologic effect and thus is hard to say from that what is its physiologic function. My other problem was that this sentence you wrote did not really connect with the rest. I thought there was a way to integrate it via its regulation of Pip₂ and the PLC, however since I looked at the paper again while writing this, it rather seems that what Dasgupta et al. (2009) found is just the effect of some pathology and the actual function ceramide kinase is then making ceramide 1–phosphate and the point is then whatever ceramide 1–phosphate does. -- Martin Gühmann (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Biology

Drosophila 106.210.249.44 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is successful of having major sections that covers the topic, but the leading section does not mention a brief description of the major sections. The content overall was concise with a neutral point of view. There have been recent edits on the article. Therefore, I believe the paper is up to date.Ajaslay (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Terminology and document structure

Hi,
While a complete description of the nervous system is more than the connectome, information about the animal's nervous system is concentrated under "Connectome". A "Neuroanatomy" section with "Connectome" as subsection would be an improvement. Any objections? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Article size

Hi everyone! The Drosophila melanogaster page is overgrown. Wikipedia recommends that articles be kept under 8,000 words to improve readability. This article has ~10,000 words. This could be a touchy subject, but what sections have unnecessary detail, and could be shortened/split/moved to other articles? Ideas: Vision (there was a discussion about this, below, in 2005), Immunity, Aggression, Connectome, Adh gene mutation (doesn't fit in with classic genetic mutations section) Do others agree? Thanks. The Tuthill lab (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Beer flies / bar flies

I believe this is the same species that tends to infest bars and pubs in the early autumn fruiting season, feeding on spilt beer and other sugary substances. The article doesn't mention this at all Ef80 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I added a bit about this in the intro. The Tuthill lab (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Bugs 38.42.127.211 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)