Shared and distinct mechanisms of atonal regulation in Drosophila ocelli and compound eyes

Patterning of the Drosophila retina by the morphogenetic furrow

Pattern formation is the process by which cells within a homogeneous epithelial sheet acquire distinctive fates depending upon their relative spatial position to each other. Several proposals, starting with Alan Turing's diffusion-reaction model, have been put forth over the last 70 years to describe how periodic patterns like those of vertebrate somites and skin hairs, mammalian molars, fish scales, and avian feather buds emerge during development. One of the best experimental systems for testing said models and identifying the gene regulatory networks that control pattern formation is the compound eye of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Its cellular morphogenesis has been extensively studied for more than a century and hundreds of mutants that affect its development have been isolated. In this review we will focus on the morphogenetic furrow, a wave of differentiation that takes an initially homogeneous sheet of cells and converts it into an ordered array of unit eyes or ommatidia. Since the discovery of the furrow in 1976, positive and negative acting morphogens have been thought to be solely responsible for propagating the movement of the furrow across a motionless field of cells. However, a recent study has challenged this model and instead proposed that mechanical driven cell flow also contributes to retinal pattern formation. We will discuss both models and their impact on patterning.

Development of the ocellar visual system in Drosophila melanogaster

The adult visual system of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, contains seven eyes-two compound eyes, a pair of Hofbauer-Buchner eyelets, and three ocelli. Each of these eye types has a specialized and essential role to play in visual and/or circadian behavior. As such, understanding how each is specified, patterned, and wired is of primary importance to vision biologists. Since the fruit fly is amenable to manipulation by an enormous array of genetic and molecular tools, its development is one of the best and most studied model systems. After more than a century of experimental investigations, our understanding of how each eye type is specified and patterned is grossly uneven. The compound eye has been the subject of several thousand studies; thus, our knowledge of its development is the deepest. By comparison, very little is known about the specification and patterning of the other two visual systems. In this Viewpoint article, we will describe what is known about the function and development of the Drosophila ocelli.

EyeVolve, a modular PYTHON based model for simulating developmental eye type diversification

Vision is among the oldest and arguably most important sensory modalities for animals to interact with their external environment. Although many different eye types exist within the animal kingdom, mounting evidence indicates that the genetic networks required for visual system formation and function are relatively well conserved between species. This raises the question as to how common developmental programs are modified in functionally different eye types. Here, we approached this issue through EyeVolve, an open-source PYTHON-based model that recapitulates eye development based on developmental principles originally identified in Drosophila melanogaster. Proof-of-principle experiments showed that this program’s animated timeline successfully simulates early eye tissue expansion, neurogenesis, and pigment cell formation, sequentially transitioning from a disorganized pool of progenitor cells to a highly organized lattice of photoreceptor clusters wrapped with support cells. Further, tweaking just five parameters (precursor pool size, founder cell distance and placement from edge, photoreceptor subtype number, and cell death decisions) predicted a multitude of visual system layouts, reminiscent of the varied eye types found in larval and adult arthropods. This suggests that there are universal underlying mechanisms that can explain much of the existing arthropod eye diversity. Thus, EyeVolve sheds light on common principles of eye development and provides a new computational system for generating specific testable predictions about how development gives rise to diverse visual systems from a commonly specified neuroepithelial ground plan.

Regulation of Eye Determination and Regionalization in the Spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum

Animal visual systems are enormously diverse, but their development appears to be controlled by a set of conserved retinal determination genes (RDGs). Spiders are particular masters of visual system innovation, and offer an excellent opportunity to study the evolution of animal eyes. Several RDGs have been identified in spider eye primordia, but their interactions and regulation remain unclear. From our knowledge of RDG network regulation in Drosophila melanogaster, we hypothesize that orthologs of Pax6, eyegone, Wnt genes, hh, dpp, and atonal could play important roles in controlling eye development in spiders. We analyzed the expression of these genes in developing embryos of the spider Parasteatodatepidariorum, both independently and in relation to the eye primordia, marked using probes for the RDG sine oculis. Our results support conserved roles for Wnt genes in restricting the size and position of the eye field, as well as for atonal initiating photoreceptor differentiation. However, we found no strong evidence for an upstream role of Pax6 in eye development, despite its label as a master regulator of animal eye development; nor do eyg, hh or dpp compensate for the absence of Pax6. Conversely, our results indicate that hh may work with Wnt signaling to restrict eye growth, a role similar to that of Sonichedgehog (Shh) in vertebrates.

Azadirachtin acting as a hazardous compound to induce multiple detrimental effects in Drosophila melanogaster

Azadirachtin, a tetranortriterpenoid botanical insecticide, has varied sub-lethal effects against many insect pests, including antifeedant, repellent, and growth regulatory. Despite extensive studies of the mechanisms that underline these physiological effects, little attention has been given to multiple toxic effects of azadirachtin under a coherent concentration, and there is no definitive overarching consensus on its toxicity. Here, we investigated multiple sub-lethal effects induced by 4 mg L^-1 of azadirachtin, which did not elicit antifeedant behavior in Drosophila melanogaster, on metrics of longevity, development, compound eyes and reproduction. Exposure to <20 mg L^-1 azadirachtin did not induce mortality, and 4 mg L^-1 of azadirachtin could shorten lifespan, expression of detoxification genes and activities of related detoxification enzymes were higher. The lower activity of chitinase and higher content of chitin in fruit fly exposed to 4 mg L^-1 azadirachtin could be important in developmental inhibition effects, and ovarian abnormalities and lower fecundity could have resulted from azadirachtin-mediated influences on juvenile hormone and ecdysone that disrupted the endocrine system. Caspase-3, head involution defective and reaper-dependent apoptosis genes may have been responsible for compound eye abnormalities in flies exposed to azadirachtin. Our findings provide important insights to the potential mechanisms of sub-lethal effects of azadirachtin.

Ancient genetic redundancy of eyeless and twin of eyeless in the arthropod ocular segment

Pax6 transcription factors are essential upstream regulators in the developing anterior brain and peripheral visual system of most bilaterian animals. While a single homolog is in charge of these functions in vertebrates, two Pax6 genes are in Drosophila: eyeless (ey) and twin of eyeless (toy). At first glance, their co-existence seems sufficiently explained by their differential involvement in the specification of two types of insect visual organs: the lateral compound eyes (ey) and the dorsal ocelli (toy). Less straightforward to understand, however, is their genetic redundancy in promoting defined early and late growth phases of the precursor tissue to these organs: the eye-antennal imaginal disc. Drawing on comparative sequence, expression, and gene function evidence, I here conclude that this gene regulatory network module dates back to the dawn of arthropod evolution, securing the embryonic development of the ocular head segment. Thus, ey and toy constitute a paradigm to explore the organization and functional significance of longterm conserved genetic redundancy of duplicated genes. Indeed, as first steps in this direction, recent studies uncovered the shared use of binding sites in shared enhancers of target genes that are under redundant (string) and, strikingly, even subfunctionalized control by ey and toy (atonal). Equally significant, the evolutionarily recent and paralog-specific function of ey to repress the transcription of the antenna fate regulator Distal-less offers a functionally and phylogenetically well-defined opportunity to study the reconciliation of shared, partitioned, and newly acquired functions in a duplicated developmental gene pair.

Molecular Evolution of Spider Vision: New Opportunities, Familiar Players

Spiders are among the world's most species-rich animal lineages, and their visual systems are likewise highly diverse. These modular visual systems, composed of four pairs of image-forming "camera" eyes, have taken on a huge variety of forms, exhibiting variation in eye size, eye placement, image resolution, and field of view, as well as sensitivity to color, polarization, light levels, and motion cues. However, despite this conspicuous diversity, our understanding of the genetic underpinnings of these visual systems remains shallow. Here, we review the current literature, analyze publicly available transcriptomic data, and discuss hypotheses about the origins and development of spider eyes. Our efforts highlight that there are many new things to discover from spider eyes, and yet these opportunities are set against a backdrop of deep homology with other arthropod lineages. For example, many (but not all) of the genes that appear important for early eye development in spiders are familiar players known from the developmental networks of other model systems (e.g., Drosophila). Similarly, our analyses of opsins and related phototransduction genes suggest that spider photoreceptors employ many of the same genes and molecular mechanisms known from other arthropods, with a hypothesized ancestral spider set of four visual and four nonvisual opsins. This deep homology provides a number of useful footholds into new work on spider vision and the molecular basis of its extant variety. We therefore discuss what some of these first steps might be in the hopes of convincing others to join us in studying the vision of these fascinating creatures.

Distinct regulation of atonal in a visual organ of Drosophila: Organ-specific enhancer and lack of autoregulation in the larval eye

Drosophila has three types of visual organs, the larval eyes or Bolwig's organs (BO), the ocelli (OC) and the compound eyes (CE). In all, the bHLH protein Atonal (Ato) functions as the proneural factor for photoreceptors and effects the transition from progenitor cells to differentiating neurons. In this work, we investigate the regulation of ato expression in the BO primordium (BOP). Surprisingly, we find that ato transcription in the BOP is entirely independent of the shared regulatory DNA for the developing CE and OC. The core enhancer for BOP expression, ato^BO, lies ~6kb upstream of the ato gene, in contrast to the downstream location of CE and OC regulatory elements. Moreover, maintenance of ato expression in the neuronal precursors through autoregulation-a common and ancient feature of ato expression that is well-documented in eyes, ocelli and chordotonal organs-does not occur in the BO. We also show that the ato^BO enhancer contains two binding sites for the transcription factor Sine oculis (So), a core component of the progenitor specification network in all three visual organs. These binding sites function in vivo and are specifically bound by So in vitro. Taken together, our findings reveal that the control of ato transcription in the evolutionarily derived BO has diverged considerably from ato regulation in the more ancestral compound eyes and ocelli, to the extent of acquiring what appears to be a distinct and evolutionarily novel cis-regulatory module.