Fly Room Research Articles

Did a small thermosensitive intron contribute to the temperate adaptation of Drosophila melanogaster?

Drosophila melanogaster was first used for research in the early 1900's by scientists located in the northeastern corridor of the United States, gaining prominence with the establishment of the famous "fly room" by Thomas Hunt Morgan at Columbia University circa1908. Several reasons for using D. melanogaster in research are well known; easy and inexpensive to breed, short lifespan, amongst others. But why was this insect species flourishing in a temperate northeast region of the New World during the late 1800's when they originated in the tropical forests of sub-Saharan Africa millions of years ago? The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the experimental underpinnings for a temperature sensitive mechanism that likely contributed to the rather unique ability of Drosophila melanogaster to successfully colonize temperate regions on a global scale. It also furnishes an interesting historical insight into how ancestral genetics serendipitously held the keys to the journey of D. melanogaster becoming such a popular research organism. While numerous papers have been published detailing different aspects of the work, this is the first comprehensive review. Herein, I discuss the discovery of a small thermosensitive intron in D. melanogaster (termed dmpi8) that controls midday siesta levels. Like many day-active animals, Drosophila exhibits a robust genetically based midday siesta that is protective in warm climates. Yet long bouts of daytime inactivity might be counterproductive in temperate climates, especially since daylength in these regions is shorter during the cooler months. Evidence discussed in this review strongly indicates that targeting of dmpi8 splicing efficiency by natural selection enhanced the ability of D. melanogaster to scale daytime sleep levels commensurate with a wide range of local climates. Surprisingly, dmpi8 splicing regulates midday siesta levels in trans by controlling the expression of a nearby anti-siesta gene called daywake. The "fortuitous" genetic arrangement of a thermosensitive intron in proximity to an anti-siesta gene might have contributed to the cosmopolitan nature of D. melanogaster and its historical journey in becoming a popular research organism.

InDRC 2015 – The Tradition of Drosophila Research in India has Attained a Critical Mass

Drosophila, the dew flies, are so named because of the buzz of these nearly invisible insects encountered during a walk on the early morning dew covered grass. They feed on fermented organic matter, fruits and vegetables, and, therefore are also called fruit flies. They are found almost all over the tropics and subtropics. A chance encounter followed by a systematic research by pioneers, Thomas Hunt Morgan and his colleagues, in the ‘Fly Room’ of Columbia University, during the early 20th Century has made a particular species of the Mediterranean fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, the darling of nearly 7000 laboratories worldwide. These flies are now literally buzzing around the world, jet-setting the pace of biological research in a broad variety of wideranging topics evolution, genetics, cell and developmental biology, neurobiology and many others. The underlying causes of a variety of human diseases are also studied in these insects to fast-track the discovery of underlying factors and possible cures.

William Martin Gelbart 1945-2015.

the database as new data flowed in. This required considerable organizational skills, a deep knowledge and appreciation of Drosophila genetics and an ability to integrate technological advances. For his work with Flybase, Bill was awarded the 2010 Genetics Society of America George W. Beadle Medal for outstanding contributions to the community of genetics researchers (see photo). Flybase was the first biological database centered on a model organism. Others have followed suit, and Bill played an important advisory role for WormBase, ZFIN (Zebrafish Information Network), Mouse Genetics Informatics (MGI) and the Human Genome Project. Throughout his career Bill demonstrated a sincere commitment to sharing his knowledge through teaching. Aside from teaching genetics in the classroom, Bill spent hours alongside his trainees in the fly room. Like all of the best teachers, he challenged us to work through problems, guiding us when we were off track but enabling us to come up with the answer in the end. His mentorship was marked by a strong belief in inclusion. Bill served for many years with the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations to promote diversity and equity and was honored with the Harvard Distinguished Faculty Award in 2014. Bill was also instrumental in developing the Frontiers in Genomics program at the University of New Mexico, where he fostered a sense of community, regardless of ethnicity, to which the students responded with passion and deep gratitude. Bill embodied the love of family and zest for science in equal parts, always supplemented with a mischievous sense of humor. He gave fatherly advice to the expectant parents in his lab, and taught his children ‘Mr. Potato Head genetics’ to explain the appearance of a grandparent’s eyes in a newborn child. Bill is survived by his beloved, devoted wife, Susan; his loving daughters Marnie Carey, Courtney Phelon and Jennifer Walsh; his adoring grandchildren Delilah, Theodore and Amelia; his sons-in-law James Carey and Scott Phelon; brother Herb and sister-in-law Susan; and other in-laws, nieces, nephews and dear friends. Bill leaves behind a community, his family, of geneticists, genomic explorers and lay enthusiasts who will transmit the wonders of genetics to future generations. William Martin Gelbart 1945–2015

In pursuit of the gene: an interview with James Schwartz.

A few years ago, a friend suggested I take a look at a new book on the history of genetics written by independent scholar James Schwartz. Since my appetite for this kind of thing appears insatiable, I ordered the book and devoured it over a weekend. In In Pursuit of the Gene, Schwartz examines the brilliance of Mendel and Darwin; eavesdrops on the debates of Galton, Bateson, Pearson, Wendel, and De Vries; alights in the fly room of the early Drosophilists Morgan, Sturtevant, and Bridges; and settles at last on the highly unsettled Hermann Muller. This book is a must-read for anyone who is curious about genetics, and that means you, dear reader!

How I became a biochemist

How I became a biochemist

Some Thoughts on “Adaptive Peaks,” “Dobzhansky’s Dilemma”—and How to Think About Evolution

Theodosius Dobzhansky was one of the most important evolutionary biologists of the twentieth century. Born in Russia in 1900, Dobzhansky came to Columbia University in New York in late 1927 to work in Thomas Hunt Morgan’s famous “fly room”—birthplace of much of modern genetics. He had been trained as a systematist, with an expertise on ladybird beetles. Dobzhansky’s (1937) first book—Genetics and the Origin of Species—was in many ways his best. The book went through two subsequent editions (1941, 1951), expanding and clarifying his own evolving thought. When it came time for a fourth edition, Dobzhansky’s equally renowned colleague Ernst Mayr (personal communication) pleaded with Dobzhansky to change the title—which he did— to Genetics of the Evolutionary Process (1970). Excellent as all these works were, though, there is something that still seems fresh as one reads that first book (1937)—where Dobzhansky wrestled for the first time in an extended format with problems of reconciling the genetics of populations with the Darwinian vision of evolution through natural selection. I remember Dobzhansky’s 1937 work primarily for three reasons—three areas of discussion of evolutionary processes which were novel, even perhaps revolutionary at the time he was writing. First, he was thinking in hierarchical terms: Dobzhansky made it explicitly clear that the rules governing genetic inheritance (“physiological genetics” in his parlance) are different from the rules governing the fate of gene frequencies within populations (“population genetics”). Selection and drift occur in populations, at least in large measure independent of mutation and the mechanics of parent–offspring inheritance. He also saw that the smoothly continuous states of genetic variation within populations stand in contrast to discrete states of alleles–mutations at the individual level and also in contrast with the manifest genetic discontinuities between discrete, yet closely related, species. Secondly, Dobzhansky was the first to rethink the importance of geography in setting up the discontinuities between species. Though Mayr (1942) is largely remembered for elaborating the concept of allopatric speciation (see Thanukos 2008, for a review), in reality, it was Dobzhansky who had first resurrected the importance of isolation (primarily geographically induced) in speciation and thus to the evolutionary process in general. But, thirdly, Dobzhansky was concerned with the maintenance—and selective value—of genetic variation in natural populations. He had become enamored with Sewall Wright’s (e.g., 1931, 1932) imagery of the “adaptive landscape,” using it to frame his discussion of various evolutionary issues. Wright (born in 1889) was a geneticist based at the University of Chicago (and later at the University of Wisconsin) for most of his long, productive career. He was one of three geneticists (the other two being the Englishmen Ronald Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane) who applied their gifts with mathematics and statistical analysis to evolutionary genetics, essentially founding the field of “population genetics,” and effectively reconciling genetics with the Darwinian theory of evolution through natural selection. Sewall Wright is perhaps best remembered for his notion of “genetic drift.” He demonstrated mathematically that genes could “go to fixation” (i.e., not be eliminated by Evo Edu Outreach (2008) 1:243–246 DOI 10.1007/s12052-008-0057-4

Beyond the Boss and the Boys: Women and the Division of Labor in Drosophila Genetics in the United States, 1934–1970

The vast network of Drosphila geneticists spawned by Thomas Hunt Morgan's fly room in the early 20th century has justifiably received a significant amount of scholarly attention. However, most accounts of the history of Drosophila genetics focus heavily on the "boss and the boys," rather than the many other laboratory groups which also included large numbers of women. Using demographic information extracted from the Drosophila Information Service directories from 1934 to 1970, we offer a profile of the gendered division of labor within Drosophila genetics in the United States during the middle decades of the 20th century. Our analysis of the gendered division of labor supports a reconsideration of laboratory practices as different forms of work.

Culture ofDrosophila: The Laboratory Setup

INTRODUCTIONSince its introduction to experimental biology more than 90 years ago, Drosophila melanogaster has proved to be an easily cultured and robust laboratory animal. Although culture techniques and the ways in which flies are handled have changed over the years, if he were to enter a fly room today, T.H. Morgan would clearly recognize what is being done, and why. This article provides the basic methods for the laboratory culture of D. melanogaster. The intelligent culture of Drosophila requires a basic understanding of the life cycle of this fly. For this reason, we begin by describing the life cycle of Drosophila and then present information for setting up a fly laboratory.

The Other Fly Room: J. T. Patterson and Texas Genetics

TO geneticists, “The Fly Room” means the Drosophila lab at Columbia University in New York. Here T. H. Morgan and his brilliant students, C. B. Bridges, A. H. Sturtevant, and H. J. Muller worked together in a single room and laid the foundation for the magnificent edifice that is Drosophila

The universe of Drosophila genes.

This special section looks at the generation of the Drosophila genome sequence from a variety of perspectives—from the historical to the technical to forecasts of the future. For a more global discussion of our perception of the scientific and political significance of the findings, please see the Editorial on p. [2157][1]; here we present an introductory map to guide you. “How close is the genome sequence to being really complete? How was the assembly done?” Adams et al. (p. [2185][2]) present an overview of the status of the project, including an attempt to define completion. Information about the multiple stages of the assembly process and the methods used to validate the sequence can be found in Myers et al. (p. [2196][3]). See also the Report on the bacterial artificial chromosome-based physical map and clones for chromosomes 2 and 3 of Drosophila that were used in the assembly and validation process (Hoskins et al. , p. [2271][4]). The initial attempts to annotate the sequence in order to identify genes and begin to predict their function were made in a unique meeting that is described as “a Woodstock for science nerds” in the News story by Elizabeth Pennisi. The fruits of this labor can be found in a foldout summarizing the coding content of Drosophila and in discussions of the gene complement needed for fundamental operations, including DNA replication, transcription, and translation. Comparisons of protein families in Drosophila , Caenorhabditis elegans , and yeast can be found in Rubin et al. (p. [2204][5]) as well as a look at developmental and cellular processes and similarities to human disease genes. The Drosophila genome provides further evidence that evolution to more complex forms of life does not principally depend on the generation of new genes, but on new combinations of protein domains or novel interactions. However, as you will see in these pages, even this initial examination of the genome revealed surprises that could not have been predicted from other organisms and that will open doors to new research. To help in digesting this mass of information, the three Reviews are accompanied by other short pieces. A historical Viewpoint is presented by Rubin and Lewis (p. [2216][6]), two descendants of the traditions of the Fly Room at Columbia University, where so much of the early history was made. In the Perspectives section, Brenner (p. [2173][7]) uses the sequencing of Drosophila as a starting point to discuss the issues facing pre- and postgenomic genetics. Three Viewpoint pieces focus on directions for the future. The cDNA resource described by Rubin et al. (p. [2222][8]) will be crucial for studies of gene expression and protein function. Benos et al. (p. [2220][9]) give us an advance look at the insights that are being gained by the European Drosophila Genome Project from their analysis of the tip of the X chromosome, including an explanation for a puzzling structural feature. Kornberg and Krasnow (p. [2218][10]) describe how the universal language of DNA will have profound implications for the use of Drosophila as a model system in understanding biological processes and human disease. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2157 [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2185 [3]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2196 [4]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2271 [5]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2204 [6]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2216 [7]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2173 [8]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2222 [9]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2220 [10]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.287.5461.2218

Pedigree: The Morgan lineage

Intellectual pedigrees convey the longevity and continuity of scientific lineages. The Drosophila community founded by Thomas Hunt Morgan and the Columbia Fly Room is still flourishing after eighty-five years (Figure 1).

In the Fly Room

Book Review| January 01 1995 In the Fly Room Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental LifeRobert E. Kohler Angela N. H. Creager Angela N. H. Creager Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences (1995) 25 (2): 357–360. https://doi.org/10.2307/27757749 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Angela N. H. Creager; In the Fly Room. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 1 January 1995; 25 (2): 357–360. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/27757749 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentHistorical Studies in the Natural Sciences Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1995 The Regents of the University of California Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Science as a way of knowing: the foundations of modern biology

Introduction A Brief Conceptual Framework for Biology PART ONE: UNDERSTANDING NATURE 1. The Antecedents of Scientific Thought Animism, Totemism, and Shamanism The Paleolithic View Mesopotamia Egypt 2. Aristotle and the Greek View of Nature The Science of Animal Biology The Parts of Animals The Classification of Animals The Aristotelian System Basic Questions 3. Those Rational Greeks? Theophrastus and the Science of Botany The Roman Pliny Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine Erasistratus Galen of Pergamum The Greek Miracle 4. The Judeo-Christian Worldview The Bishop of Hippo Scholastic Thought Islamic Science Books on Beasts Antecedents of a Revolution 5. The Revival of Science Andreas Vesalius and the Study of Structure William Harvey and the Study of Function Sir Francis Bacon's Great Instauration Induction, Hypothesis, Deduction The Very Small--Animalcules Robert Hooke and the Discovery of Cells 6. Figur'd Stones and Plastick Virtue Marine Life on Mountain Tops? Figured Stones of Unknown Creatures Baron Cuvier Quarries of the Paris Basin Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism William Smith and the Geological Column Understanding Nature in 1850 PART TWO: THE GROWTH OF EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT 7. The Paradigm of Evolution First Questions The Paradigm of Natural Theology First Answers 8. Testing Darwins Hypotheses Have Life Forms Changed over Time? Do Species Evolve into Different Species over Time? Has There Been Time Enough for Evolution? Is Natural Selection the Mechanism of Change? The Genetic Basis of Natural Selection Accounting for the Diversity of Life 9. In the Light of Evolution Comparative Anatomy Embryonic Development Classification Microstructure Molecular Processes 10. Life over Time The Origin of Life The Rise of Multicelled Organisms What Is a Phylum? Burgess Shale Metazoans Early Evolution of the Vertebrates The Age of Dinosaurs Birds, Mammals, and Flowering Plants The Rancho La Brea Tar Pits Human Evolution The Role of Extinction in Evolution PART THREE: CLASSICAL GENETICS 11. Pangenesis What Is the Question? Hippocrates and Aristotle The Darwinian Answer Assembling the Data Formulating the Hypothesis by Induction Galton's Rabbits 12. The Cell Theory The Discovery of Cells: Robert Hooke Schwann and Cells in Animals Gametes as Cells Omnis cellula e cellula? The Technology of Cell Research 13. The Hypothesis of Chromosomal Continuity The Ephemeral Nucleus Schneider, Flemming, and Cell Division The Chromosomes and inheritance Gamete Formation Fertilization 14. Mendel and the Birth of Genetics Model for Monohybrid Crosses Model for Dihybrid Crosses Mendel's Laws Initial Opposition to Mendelism 15. Genetics + Cytology: 1900-1910 Sutton's Model The Cytological Basis of Mendel's Laws Boveri and Abnormal Chromosome Sets Variations in Mendelian Ratios The Discovery of Sex Chromosomes 16. The Genetics of the Fruit Fly Morgan's First Hypothesis Morgan's Second Hypothesis The Fly Room Linkage and Crossing-Over The Cytological Proof of Crossing-Over Mapping the Chromosomes The Final Proof The Determinants of Sex The Conceptual Foundations of Classical Genetics 17. The Structure and Function of Genes One Gene, One Enzyme The Substance of Inheritance The Watson-Crick Model of DNA Genes and the Synthesis of Proteins The Genetic Code PART FOUR: THE ENIGMA OF DEVELOPMENT 18. First Principles The Peripatetic Stagirite The Death and Rebirth of Scientific Thought Harvey and Malpighi A Two-Millennial Summing Up Preformation versus Epigenesis 19. The Century of Discovery Von Baer's Discovery of the Mammalian Ovum Darwin's Contribution to Embryology Haeckel and Recapitulation 20. Descriptive Embryology Germ Layers The External Development of the Amphibian Embryo The Internal Development of the Amphibian Embryo 21. The Dawn of Analytical Embryology His, Roux, and Mosaic Development Driesch and Regulative Development Novelty in Development Cell Lineage Nucleus or Cytoplasm? Fin de Siecle 22. Interactions during Development Amphibian Organizers Secondary Organizers The Reacting Tissue The Chemical Nature of the Organizer Putting It All Together Conclusion Further Reading References Illustration Credits Index

A Leader of the Fly Room: Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science . Garland E. Allen. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1979. xviii, 448 pp., illus. $25.; Thomas Hunt Morgan: Pioneer of Genetics . Ian Shine and Sylvia Wrobel. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 1976. xvi, 160 pp., illus., + plates. $7.50 (Kentucky Bicentennial Bookshelf edition, $3.95; after

A Leader of the Fly Room: <i>Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science</i> . Garland E. Allen. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1979. xviii, 448 pp., illus. $25.; <i>Thomas Hunt Morgan: Pioneer of Genetics</i> . Ian Shine and Sylvia Wrobel. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 1976. xvi, 160 pp., illus., + plates. $7.50 (Kentucky Bicentennial Bookshelf edition, $3.95; after

NOTES ON THE BIOLOGY OF NECROBIA RUFICOLLIS, FABR. [COLEOPTERA, CLERIDAE.

SUMMARY. 1 Necrobia ruficollis bred abundantly in the “Fly Room” at the Imperial College of Science, London, in 1917–8. The larvae lived in the debris in the vessels in which houseflies were bred. This debris consisted of remains of food provided for the fly-maggots (a mixture of bread or bran, casein, and banana or beetroot), sawdust, and numbers of empty puparia. 2 During long periods in which the room-temperature was at or above 64°F. (about 18°C.) the Necrobia continued breeding regardless of season. 3 Observations made tend to confirm the view already expressed by some writers, that the larvae of this insect are usually saprophagous, but that they sometimes return to the predaceous habits characteristic of the Cleridae, and kill and devour other larvae. They were observed to eat the soft parts of dead adult flies, and to be attracted to mouldy cheese; they sometimes bore into puparia of flies (two were watched in the act); and with considerable difficulty some were induced to kill and eat fly-maggots. 4 For pupation the larvae make use of existing cavities, and screen over all spaces with hardened, white, opaque, secretion; or they make themselves cells, and line these with the secretion. As recorded by earlier writers, a very frequent method is to enter an empty fly-puparium, and screen over the open end. But they also readily excavated and lined cells in sawdust, sometimes even when empty puparia were ready to their use. Two larvae pupated without any cell or cocoon, but this was probably a result of unfavourable conditions. 5 The adult beetles were observed to eat dead fly-maggots and the soft parts of dead adult flies. They were attracted in numbers to mouldy cheese and to sugar-and water. The evidence was against their killing fly-maggots. 6 Some notes on the form of the larva and pupa are given, including observations which indicate that slight changes in the number of setae, etc., occur at the larval moults.