4.7 Article

Two Drosophila DEG/ENaC Channel Subunits Have Distinct Functions in Gustatory Neurons That Activate Male Courtship

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 32, 期 34, 页码 11879-11889

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1376-12.2012

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCD [R01DC007911]
  2. Biomedical Research Support Program for Medical Schools, Howard Hughes Medical Institute [76200-560801]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trimeric sodium channels of the DEG/ENaC family have important roles in neurons, but the specific functions of different subunits present in heteromeric channels are poorly understood. We previously reported that the Drosophila DEG/ENaC subunit Ppk25 is essential in a small subset of gustatory neurons for activation of male courtship behavior, likely through detection of female pheromones. Here we show that, like mutations in ppk25, mutations in another Drosophila DEG/ENaC subunit gene, nope, specifically impair male courtship of females. nope regulatory sequences drive reporter gene expression in gustatory neurons of the labellum wings, and legs, including all gustatory neurons in which ppk25 function is required for male courtship of females. In addition, gustatory-specific knockdown of nope impairs male courtship. Further, the impaired courtship response of nope mutant males to females is rescued by targeted expression of nope in the subset of gustatory neurons in which ppk25 functions. However, nope and ppk25 have nonredundant functions, as targeted expression of ppk25 does not compensate for the lack of nope and vice versa. Moreover, Nope and Ppk25 form specific complexes when coexpressed in cultured cells. Together, these data indicate that the Nope and Ppk25 polypeptides have specific, nonredundant functions in a subset of gustatory neurons required for activation of male courtship in response to females, and suggest the hypothesis that Nope and Ppk25 function as subunits of a heteromeric DEG/ENaC channel required for gustatory detection of female pheromones.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据