SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Australian entomology research;
  • insect molecular biology;
  • molecular entomology

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: A STUDY OF MOLECULAR FUNCTION
  5. INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA: THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS
  6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
  8. REFERENCES

One of the biggest advances in biological research has undoubtedly been the development of our capacity to investigate individual phenotypes, species biology and multi-species interactions at the molecular level. This has provided the ability to understand the detailed mechanisms that regulate biological processes and, in many cases, to manipulate them or use them to our advantage. In this Overview we define ‘insect molecular biology’ as the study of gene/protein expression and molecular function and contrast it with ‘traditional entomology’ and ‘comparative molecular entomology’. Obtaining the genomes of various insect species has provided significant advances in our ability to quickly isolate important genes. Study of the proteins they produce is important as they are functionally extremely diverse and are the basis for biological differences in extant species. Australian researchers have contributed significantly to our knowledge of insect molecular biology. Functional insect molecular biology studies undertaken in Australia are summarised, concentrating on the last 15 years, during which time insect molecular research has accelerated, largely due to obtaining key insect genomes and corresponding advances in molecular technologies. Currently, however, in Australia there is minimal collaboration between insect molecular biologists and researchers working in traditional or comparative molecular biology. We propose that an increase in these types of collaborations would benefit the broad field of entomology in Australia and increase the impact of Australian entomology globally.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: A STUDY OF MOLECULAR FUNCTION
  5. INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA: THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS
  6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
  8. REFERENCES

At a practical level, entomological research can be classified into three (somewhat arbitrary and overlapping) categories. First, ‘traditional entomology’, which generally deals with morphological taxonomy, ecology and pest management/biocontrol. This area of entomology often defines deeper areas of research by identifying interesting biological phenomena. This research may use established biochemical techniques (such as enzyme activity assays) but does not investigate DNA or protein. Second, ‘comparative molecular entomology’, which uses comparisons of one or several molecules (or parts thereof) to conduct research into genetics, comparative genomics, systematics/phylogenetics, population studies, diagnostics/barcoding and monitoring. This type of research is often led by established ‘traditional’ entomologists, who develop the capacity to perform routine molecular techniques such as standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR), DNA sequencing and allozyme analysis. Comparative molecular entomology produces diagnostic data relating to the detection and quantification of biological phenomena, but generally does not deal with the mechanisms underlying these processes. The third category, ‘insect molecular biology’, studies molecular interactions that regulate biological processes. In simple terms, this involves the production of proteins (and non-coding RNAs) from DNA, and the function of these proteins/RNAs. This is fundamental research as it focuses on functional molecular interactions, which provides information on the mechanism and regulation of biological processes, rather than simply their detection/measurement. Scientists with a background in molecular biology generally lead this type of research, rather than those trained in traditional entomology. In this Overview we will concentrate on Australian research falling into what we have defined as ‘insect molecular biology’, as these studies are not often published in the Australian Journal of Entomology. In contrast, there has been a range of papers in this journal that deal with the ‘traditional’ and ‘comparative molecular’ research. For example, DNA barcoding was discussed in a previous Overview article (Mitchell 2008).

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: A STUDY OF MOLECULAR FUNCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: A STUDY OF MOLECULAR FUNCTION
  5. INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA: THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS
  6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
  8. REFERENCES

The importance of molecular biology is that its major focus is how molecules function to regulate higher-order processes such as development, immunity, olfaction, symbiosis, etc. A key point to consider is that DNA is not a functional molecule in itself but acts as a template from which functional and structural proteins are derived, and provides binding sites for regulatory proteins involved in DNA replication, DNA repair and gene expression. At a functional level, an organism's protein repertoire differentiates it from another, rather than its DNA. In that sense, the term ‘gene function’ is misleading. Whereas DNA is one molecule with a set of biological/physical properties, the proteins it encodes are extremely diverse (of an order similar to the expressed genes) and determine an organism's structure and metabolism. Additionally, similarities/differences in ‘non-coding’ DNA (which are generally not subject to heavy selection pressure) are indicative of ancestral commonality and relative timing of subsequent divergence. They are not, however, necessarily indicative of the current biological differences between extant species.

A good example of this has been the long debated relationship between cockroaches and termites. A recent phylogenetic study applied Bayesian analysis to DNA sequence data from five highly conserved genetic loci with results suggesting that the cockroach family Blattidae is more closely related to the Termitidae than to cockroach families of the Blaberoidea (Inward et al. 2007). The obvious morphological and biological differences between cockroaches and termites are not obviously reflected in genomic DNA of the different taxa but were likely driven by changes to the repertoire of functional genes within their commensal gut flora. Within the lower termites this is further evidenced by the existence of taxon-specific microorganism communities (Yang et al. 2006), within which each species has the potential to provide complete metabolic pathways that benefit a host. In the case of termites, these pathways are crucial to wood degradation. Interestingly, the discovery of shared symbiotic gut flagellates between wood-eating Cryptocercus cockroaches and primitive termites originally raised the possibility that the two groups shared a relatively recent ancestor (Cleveland et al. 1934; Inward et al. 2007). The point of this example is to illustrate the importance of understanding protein function, in terms of developing a detailed understanding of HOW species evolve and WHY extant taxa show functional biological differences.

The first genome sequence for an insect, that of the genetic model, the vinegar fly Drosophila melanogaster Meigen 1830, was published in the year 2000 (Adams et al. 2000). This was a breakthrough in insect molecular biology as it facilitated the identification of large numbers of functional genes (and gene families) for isolation and analysis, both from Drosophila and from other insects. In addition, the fact that Drosophila shares a range of genes that are apparently orthologous to human genes has seen this species become a model for both insect and human molecular biology (as it has been for genetics) (e.g. see Sanokawa-Akakura et al. 2010). Some examples of these shared genes include those encoding neurological signalling proteins (Hirth 2010), developmental proteins (Coulson et al. 1998; Hayward et al. 2002; Wilanowski et al. 2002) and DNA damage repair proteins (Sun et al. 2010). The level of genetic characterisation of Drosophila, and the availability of powerful molecular tools to manipulate it, has seen it used widely to study a variety of genes and proteins from diverse species. Australian scientists have produced various tools that can be used to perform genetic and developmental analyses on D. melanogaster (Lockett et al. 1992; Clarkson & Saint 1999; Saint & Clarkson 2000; Murray & Saint 2007; O'Keefe et al. 2007).

Since the sequencing of D. melanogaster, large portions of the genomes of 31 other insect species have been obtained. These are mainly diptera (including various Drosophila spp. and three mosquito species), but also include pest species from other orders such as the head/body louse (Pediculus humanus (De Geer 1767)), pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris 1776)), triatomid bug Rhodnius prolixus Stal 1859 and red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst 1797), as well as three species that are considered beneficial, namely the silkworm moth (Bombyx mori, Linnaeus 1758), the honeybee (Apis mellifera Linnaeus 1758) and the jewel wasp Nasonia vitripennis (Walker 1836) (Tagu et al. 2010). Australian researchers have been involved in the production and analyses of several of these genomes, including those of A. mellifera (Honeybee Genome Sequencing Consortium 2006), Drosophila spp. (Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium 2007), A. pisum (International Aphid Genomics Consortium 2010; Tagu et al. 2010) and N. vitripennis (Nasonia Genome Working Group 2010). In terms of global monetary input, the genes/proteins of mosquitoes are the most highly studied, particularly with respect to those regulating disease-vectoring ability. Vast sums are being spent worldwide to understand the molecular basis for interactions between mosquitoes and disease-related microorganisms, mosquito host-finding and mosquito immunity/development (e.g. Ramirez & Dimopoulos 2010). Australian researchers have attracted substantial funds to conduct research into microorganism-based mosquito control (Moreira et al. 2009).

INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA: THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: A STUDY OF MOLECULAR FUNCTION
  5. INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA: THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS
  6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
  8. REFERENCES

Here we review the insect molecular biology research involving Australian groups, primarily over the previous 15 years, a time that has seen genomics emerge and accelerate molecular research. The sequencing of genomes of species of medical and agricultural importance, illustrates how insect molecular biology is often application-driven, with researchers spread across fields such as medicine, developmental biology, biosecurity and biotechnology, rather than within more traditional entomological fields such as taxonomy, phylogenetics, ecology and pest management/biological control. Furthermore, the funding bodies that service molecular biology and traditional areas of entomological research are often different. In an Australian context, we would expect molecular biology research to receive a much higher proportion of funding through industry-based groups such as industry research and development corporations (RDCs; such as Grains, Cotton, Grape and Wine RDCs), multi-industry levy-based funders (e.g. Horticulture Australia Ltd), cooperative research centres (CRCs; such as National Plant Biosecurity CRC), the Australian Research Council, and medical funders such as National Health and Medical Research Council. In contrast, traditional entomology is funded more through heritage-, conservation- or environment-based grants such as the Australian Biological Resources Study, with the exception of traditional pest management/biological control research, which is largely industry funded.

Mining insect proteins with potential commercial application

Molecular biology research is largely characterised by investigations into protein expression and function. For example, CSIRO has a research program investigating the structure and function of invertebrate proteins, with a focus on those with commercial applications such as silk proteins. One of the most successful examples of this type of research is the characterisation, modification and purification of resilin protein, which has structural similarities with silk proteins and functions to aid insects in fast, repetitive movements involving recoil, such as flying or jumping (Elvin et al. 2005). The resilin project was initially collaboration between CSIRO, the Australian National University (ANU) and the University of Queensland (UQ). The research involved the isolation of Drosophila pro-resilin-like gene (CG15920 gene) from which only the first exon was expressed as a soluble protein, using recombinant bacteria. A fungal enzyme was then used to catalyse a UV-mediated cross linking of the soluble pro-resilin into a solid rubber-like material, but with much greater resilience in maintaining strength and flexibility under repeated use than even high-performance rubbers. Prior expression analysis of the gene had shown that expression was restricted to the pupal phase in Drosophila, indicating that its resilience must be such that it can be maintained throughout the adult life of the insect. The inert recombinant pro-resilin is now being developed for medical applications such as repair or replacement of joints, and joining of severed tissues or sutures.

Another highly studied protein important for hormonal regulation of insect development is the ecdysone receptor (EcR). These receptors are important as they are potential targets for insecticides. CSIRO researchers initially characterised LcEcR1 from Lucilia cuprina and showed it was a functional steroid hormone receptor that could produce ecdysteroid-dependent transcription when expressed in mammalian cells (Hannan & Hill 1997). In addition, the group characterised an ultraspiracle gene product from L. cuprina, which in Drosophila was known to form heterodimers with EcRs to produce a functional signalling complex; this function was confirmed for the L. cuprina gene, also using recombinant mammal cells (Hannan & Hill 2001). Subsequently, the X-ray crystal structure of the ligand-binding domain of EcR from the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius 1889) in complex with an ecdysone analogue was obtained and compared with that of the moth, Heliothis virescens Fabricius 1777 (Carmichael et al. 2005).

These studies provided an insight into the apparent insensitivity of hemipterans (relative to lepidopterans and dipterans) to bis-acyl-hydrazine insecticides, which interact with the EcR ligand-binding domain. This work provided the basis for further research that allowed purification, characterisation (including ligand-binding kinetics) and comparison of recombinant ligand-binding domains of the EcRs from the four pest species L. cuprina, Myzus persicae (Sulzer 1776), B. tabaci and Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner 1805) (Graham et al. 2007a,b). This research, in turn, led to pesticide screening assays to detect other compounds that interact with the ligand-binding domains of EcRs, which were patented. These assays facilitated discovery of γ-methylene γ-lactans that showed high affinity for the target site in the sheep body louse Bovicola ovis (Schrank 1781) and L. cuprina (Birru et al. 2010). Although insect esterase proteins have often been studied with regard to insecticide resistance (see below), a different type of esterase, juvenile hormone esterase (responsible for hydrolysis of juvenile hormone), from Drosophila and the cricket Gryllus assimilis Fabricius 1775, has also been isolated (Campbell et al. 1998b, 2001; Crone et al. 2007).

Insect olfaction

Researchers at Monash University are using Drosophila as a model to investigate molecular mechanisms of olfaction, development and disease processes. For example, they use single-sensillum recordings, combined with molecular biology techniques, to examine the way in which insects detect volatile compounds within the environment (Dobritsa et al. 2003; de Bruyne & Warr 2005; Kiely et al. 2007). A recent study showed that Drosophila olfactory receptors (ORs) could detect a range of compounds associated with toxic gasses, explosives and illicit drugs, and that they also had the capacity to detect synthetic compounds (Marshall et al. 2010). The group has also investigated the functional evolution of cells and ORs related to detection of volatile esters by Drosophila spp. (de Bruyne et al. 2010), and in collaboration with UQ and several international scientists, also published work that investigated the currently unresolved signalling mechanisms driving insect olfaction (Smart et al. 2008).

Groups at CSIRO and the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) are also conducting research into insect ORs particularly with respect to identification and characterisation of important ORs (Anderson et al. 2009; Jordan et al. 2009) and their use as biological detection molecules in olfactory biosensors (or bioelectronic noses) (Leifert et al. 2009; Bailey 2010; Glatz & Bailey-Hill 2011). Such biosensors (of which no commercial examples currently exist) could expect wide use, with countless potential applications in medicine, pest management, agriculture, security and environmental monitoring. Gustatory (taste) receptors in Drosophila have also been studied in Australia (Chyb 2007).

Drosophila development and homeostasis

Australian scientists have published a number of papers on Drosophila development in high-impact journals, particularly with regard to expression and function of proteins associated with cell-cycle regulation during embryonic development (Saint & Patterson 1993), and development of the eye (Brumby et al. 2004). This research began at CSIRO in the late 1980s with a paper in Nature postulating a specific function for the Drosophila rough gene in playing a role in eye pattern formation (Saint et al. 1988), and has endured until the present. During the 1990s, the key researchers were located at the University of Adelaide (UoA) and Melbourne University, with the work being then largely being driven from ANU in the first decade of this century, in collaboration such as with CSIRO and the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Several international groups have also been involved.

The involvement of rough in eye development was further investigated with regard to chromosomal location and relevant adjacent genes (Knibb et al. 1993), and the basis for its regulatory specificity (Lockett et al. 1993). Another important genetic locus involved in Drosophila eye (and other sensory) development is lozenge; Australian scientists conducted a range of mutational studies of lozenge and linked various eye defect phenotypes (Batterham et al. 1996a; Crew et al. 1997; Siddall et al. 2003) and antennal defect phenotypes (Stocker et al. 1993) to mutations within specific regions. Several interacting genes have also been investigated, including D-Pax2 (thought to play a role in eye cell differentiation; Siddall et al. 2003) and Yan (thought to regulate lozenge expression during eye development; Behan et al. 2002).

Cyclin proteins (which also occur in mammals and regulate progression of the cell cycle between various phases) have been studied for their role in Drosophila development, including eye development. Expression studies showed that cyclin E was active in the G1 phase of neural cells (Richardson et al. 1993) and could induce premature entry of eye imaginal disc cells and embryonic epidermal cells, into S phase when expressed ectopically in these cells (Knoblich et al. 1994; Richardson et al. 1995). Cyclin E transcription was shown to be regulated through a series of tissue- and developmental stage-specific transcription factors (Jones et al. 2000). Mutational studies also implicated cyclin E in regulation of cell proliferation in eye imaginal discs (producing a ‘rough eye’ phenotype), and provided tools to screen for interacting proteins; this research confirmed that several of these proteins could modify the mutated cyclin E-derived phenotype (Secombe et al. 1998; Brumby et al. 2002, 2004).

Furthermore, developmental function of two forms of cyclin E were investigated, leading to the discovery that only one of the proteins (cyclin EII) was active in regulating cell phase transitions within the morphogenetic furrow of the imaginal disc, due to inhibition of the cyclin EI in that specific region (Crack et al. 2002). Another study identified other cell-cycle regulatory proteins important for G2 transitions; string is a phosphatase shown to function in eye disc cells but not abdominal histoblasts, and stg, which functions in wing imaginal discs (Kylsten & Saint 1997). String transcription was subsequently shown to be regulated in a cell- and tissue-specific manner by a range of cis-acting elements (Lehman et al. 1999).

Proteins that regulate mitosis and cell division (cytokinesis) during embryogenesis have also been a major field of research (see reviews by Prokopenko et al. 2000b; O'Keefe et al. 2001; Saint & Somers 2003). This research has focused largely on characterisation of the GTP exchange factor pebble (Hime & Saint 1992) and the associated Rho family of small GTPase activators (particularly RacGAP50C), which together are associated with the formation of the contractile ring that mediates the physical cell division (Prokopenko et al. 1999; Prokopenko et al. 2000a). Subsequent research indicated that the pebble gene product is involved in regulation of actomyosin organisation, and that RacGAP50c (in combination with various effectors) regulates bundling of microtubules by interacting directly with anillin (which is a cytoskeleton-related protein found in the contractile ring) (Somers & Saint 2003; Zavortink et al. 2005; Gregory et al. 2008). Pebble-related expression was also linked to the normal developmental process known as the epithelial-mesenchymal transition that occurs during gastrulation (Smallhorn et al. 2004).

Other Drosophila cell-cycle regulators characterised in Australia include the three rows gene required for chromosomal alterations during mitosis (D'Andrea et al. 1993), citron kinase whose correct localisation to the contractile ring is mediated through pebble-mediated signalling (Shandala et al. 2004) and more recently, the Tum and Pav proteins, which are associated with cytokinesis but also with regulated cell death (Jones et al. 2010). In addition, Australian scientists developed a screening system for modifiers of Rho-mediated signalling relating to cytokinesis; the system involved overexpression of putative gene candidates in vivo and the correlation of effects on a defined eye phenotype caused by defective signalling (Gregory et al. 1997). This system allowed identification of four candidate genes not previously implicated in cytokinesis in Drosophila, although orthologues of several of the genes had been implicated in other organisms.

Other Drosophila developmental proteins have been studied in Australia. Research at UoA and ANU identified a novel sequence-specific DNA-binding protein (encoded by the dead ringer gene), which was shown to be involved in transcriptional regulation of proteins affecting embryonic developmental processes including central nervous system development, anterior–posterior patterning and muscle development (Gregory et al. 1996; Shandala et al. 1999, 2002, 2003). Some of the genes regulated by dead ringer were also identified (Shandala et al. 1999) and dead ringer itself was shown to be a member of a broader family of ARID (AT-rich interacting domain) proteins, found in fungi and all metazoans (Kortschak et al. 2000). The Polycomb group (PcG) genes of D. melanogaster (e.g. polycomblike gene) were also investigated and shown to regulate important developmental gene expression, through interaction with other PcG proteins (Lonie et al. 1994; O'Connell et al. 2001). Mechanisms involved in establishment of the dorsoventral axis in fly embryos have also been studied, including the interplay (including receptor tyrosine kinase signalling) between the transcriptional modulator Dorsal, a corepressor required for downregulated gene expression (Groucho), and an accessory ‘silencer’ locus that contained a dead ringer gene (Valentine et al. 1998; Hader et al. 2000). A further high impact publication reported the characterisation of a development-related Drosophila histone protein, His2AvD, in relation to important functional regions of the protein (Clarkson et al. 1999).

Australian scientists also have published articles characterising proteins associated with Drosophila copper homeostasis (Southon et al. 2004, 2008, 2010), including tissue-specific effects (Burke et al. 2008; Binks et al. 2010) and the role in Drosophila development (Norgate et al. 2006). Other developmental signalling pathways have also been investigated (e.g. Burke et al. 1999; Behan et al. 2005; Milton et al. 2005; Siddall et al. 2009). A protein involved in a different type of homeostasis in Drosophila (maintenance of muscle), the cochaperone Starvin, was characterised with respect to coordination of smaller proteins that degrade damaged protein (Amdt et al. 2010). Further, Drosophila ion channels have also been characterised in Australia (Warr & Kelly 1996), and a specific type of ribonuclease gene has been isolated (Hime et al. 1995).

Adaptation to stress and toxins

The Centre for Environmental Stress and Adaptation Research (CESAR, at the University of Melbourne) has used Drosophila as a model to investigate the basis for adaptation to stresses such as environmental changes (Hoffmann & Hercus 2000; Hoffmann & Willi 2008), particularly temperature (Hoffmann et al. 2003), but also starvation (Harshman et al. 1999) and infection with the intracellular bacterial parasite, Wolbachia (Carrington et al. 2009). Much of this work sits largely within what we have defined here as comparative molecular entomology as it has generally used a combination of traditional quantitative genetics to correlate putative stress-related genetic polymorphisms (that may occur in a natural cline) with adaptive physiological and morphological phenotypes (Hoffmann et al. 2004, 2005; Umina et al. 2005; Hoffmann & Weeks 2007; Sgro et al. 2008). A key challenge of this research is determining the functional basis for adaptive changes as many of the genetic polymorphisms used are either markers to the relevant functional genes or are not necessarily associated with functional proteins (Frydenberg et al. 2003). Indeed, when putative functional gene loci associated with thermal adaptation of Drosophila in Europe were examined for variation along an established Australian cline, none was detected (Weeks et al. 2006). In order to unravel the functional basis for these adaptive changes, molecular biology techniques have been used to examine correlations with gene expression levels (Johnson et al. 2009; Telonis-Scott et al. 2009; Jensen et al. 2010; McKechnie et al. 2010).

A recent paper used various genetic stains of Drosophila with respect to a locus encoding a heat-shock protein 90 (HSP90) variant to show that it was associated with ‘release’ of temperature-dependent phenotypic variability in some canalised (phenotypically rigid) traits (Sgro et al. 2010). Previous research indicated that a HSP90-related locus was involved in maintaining canalised morphological traits by buffering associated genotypic variation, although other processes were also involved (Milton et al. 2003). Expression of the heat shock gene hrs-omega had also been correlated with a Drosophila thermal phenotype (McKechnie et al. 1998). Another recent paper has reported that Drosophila ROQUIN family proteins (also found in humans and Caenorhabditis elegans Maupas 1900) are associated with cytoplasmic stress granules, which are formed when eukaryotic cells respond to environmental stress, including heat (Athanasopoulos et al. 2010). The research showed that the ROQUIN proteins bind to specific mRNAs in the cytoplasm to disrupt expression of the associated proteins. Interestingly, it is thought that these stress granules may also function by facilitating preferential expression of stress proteins such as heat-shock proteins. Adaptive proteins associated with aphid–plant interactions have also been briefly examined; the salivary transcriptome and proteome of A. pisum were analysed, leading to the isolation of a salivary gland protein (denoted C002) that is crucial in allowing the aphid to feed on fava bean (Mutti et al. 2008).

Genomic techniques have been extremely important in identifying putative resistance genes across a range of insects (Oakeshott et al. 2003; Teese et al. 2010). Detoxification and insecticide-resistance mechanisms in Drosophila have been the focus of several groups, such as CSIRO, University of Melbourne and CESAR, St. Vincent's Institute of Medical Research, Victorian Department of Primary Industries and ANU. This research investigated several key areas including the expression of resistance-related genes (Odgers et al. 2002; Pyke et al. 2004; Willoughby et al. 2006, 2007), and the expression and function of relevant Drosophila proteins. These proteins include glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) (Low et al. 2007, 2010), cytochrome P450s including that encoded by the Cyp6g1 locus (Bogwitz et al. 2005; Russell et al. 1996; Daborn et al. 2002, 2007; Chung et al. 2007, 2009; Schmidt et al. 2010a), a kinase (Chen et al. 2006), esterases (Campbell et al. 2003) and the acetylcholine receptor (Perry et al. 2007, 2008). These genes have also been a priority in terms of analysing the N. vitripennis genome (Oakeshott et al. 2010). Interestingly, expression of a Drosophila P450 enzyme (among other candidate genes) has been correlated with male aggression (Robin et al. 2006).

Gene targets for the Drosophila-based resistance work were partially informed by earlier studies of chemical resistance mechanisms in the Australian sheep blowfly, L. cuprina (Wiedemann 1830), which has been investigated by CESAR, ANU and CSIRO. A GST (Board et al. 1994) and esterases (Smyth et al. 1994; Newcomb et al. 1996, 1997b) were identified (and isolated) as putative resistance genes in L. cuprina. The esterase proteins were further analysed for mutations that confer resistance (Newcomb et al. 1997a; Campbell et al. 1998a; Chen et al. 2001), with one mutation found to be responsible for organophosphorus resistance in L. cuprina and the house fly Musca domestica L. 1758 (Claudianos et al. 1999). Interestingly, the developmental Scalloped wings gene in L. cuprina (homologous to the Drosophila Notch cell receptor) was shown to be expressed in embryonic and pupal flies, and it was postulated to suppress asymmetry-related adaptive phenotypes in flies exhibiting organophosphate resistance (Chen et al. 1998), mediated by the Rop-1 carboxylesterase (Batterham et al. 1996b). Some of the Drosophila and Lucilia esterases have also been modified and compared with wild-type proteins in their ability to hydrolyse pyrethroids and pyrethroid analogues (Heidari et al. 2004, 2005; Devonshire et al. 2007). L. cuprina resistance to the growth regulators diflubenzuron and cyromazine has also been investigated, with important chromosomal regions identified (Batterham et al. 2006).

Lepidopteran insecticide resistance has also been studied, especially in the most economically important pest of Australian agriculture, the cotton bollworm H. armigera. Similar to research on Drosophila resistance, Australian researchers have used genomic approaches to identify putative resistance genes of H. armigera (Gordon et al. 2007; Wee et al. 2007; Teese et al. 2010). They are also studying this species with respect to validating tools for genetic manipulation, so that gene function can be studied either by targeted gene expression or gene silencing (Collinge et al. 2007; Williams et al. 2007). In addition, subtractive amplification of cDNA library fragments has been used to identify putative fenvalerate-resistance genes in H. armigera (Wee et al. 2008).

Resistance mechanisms in other insects have been investigated at the molecular level. CSIRO and ANU conducted an analysis of changes to the acetylcholinesterase protein in mosquitoes and the green peach aphid, showing that various changes to amino acids with the enzyme's active site were responsible for varying levels of resistance against carbamates and organophosphates (Russell et al. 2004). Additionally, there have been further reports published from Australian research, relating to resistance mechanisms in other pest species including the Mediterranean flour moth Ephestia kuehniella Zeller 1879 (Rahman et al. 2007), T. castaneum (Campbell 2010) and the lesser grain borer Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius 1792) (Campbell 2008).

A new collaborative project involving SARDI, CSIRO and Macquarie University is using various molecular approaches, including laser-scanning cytometry, to investigate genes and proteins involved in the cellular response to irradiation in the Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt 1897). Comparisons with Drosophila and human genomes will be important in this project for developing irradiation dosimetry assays for fruit flies and potentially for humans, given that similar genes and metabolic pathways are thought to be involved in both organisms (O'Keefe et al. 2005).

Insect pathology and immunity

Molecular biology is also being widely applied to the closely aligned fields of insect pathology (including parasitoid–host interactions) and insect immunity. For example, the potential role of silk proteins in the lepidopteran immune response has been investigated (Korayem et al. 2007). The unusual symbiosis between some ichneumonid wasps and their genomically encoded polydnaviruses have also been studied at the Universities of Adelaide and Queensland (Glatz et al. 2004b). These viruses are injected into a host caterpillar during parasitisation and are known to disrupt the immune function and development of hosts, allowing the wasp larva to develop. Australian researchers used the braconid wasp, Cotesia rubecula (Marshall 1885) as a model to isolate several immune-suppressive and structural viral proteins that were partially characterised (Asgari et al. 1996, 2003b; Glatz et al. 2003, 2004a; Cooper et al. 2011). In addition, they have studied some of the venom proteins of this wasp (reviewed in Asgari 2006) and shown that the proteins had various effects on the host immune system (Asgari et al. 2003a; Zhang et al. 2004a, 2006) and the expression of polydnavirus genes in the host (Zhang et al. 2004b). Expressing the C. rubecula Vn50 venom protein in Drosophila showed a range of immune, developmental and reproductive effects on recombinant flies (Thomas et al. 2010). Another project is investigating the venom proteins of an important biological control agent of the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella, Linnaeus 1777), the ichneumonid wasp Diadegma semiclausum (Hellén 1949).

In addition to these immune-suppressive proteins from wasps, the proteins involved in mounting the lepidopteran immune defence have also been studied in Australia (see review by Schmidt et al. 2010b). In order to investigate novel controls for lepidopteran pests, the H. virescens ascovirus (HvAV-3, a pathogen of economically important Noctuidae) has been sequenced by the Australian Genome Research Facility at UQ (Asgari et al. 2007). Subsequent to this, aspects of HvAV-3 molecular biology have been investigated, including the isolation and characterisation of proteins and non-coding RNAs (microRNAs) associated with virus replication and pathology (Hussain & Asgari 2008; Hussain et al. 2009, 2010; Smede et al. 2009).

Australian scientists are also conducting world-leading research into Wolbachia, and sequenced the genome of a species occurring as a pathogenic symbiont in Drosophila, wMel (Wu et al. 2004). This has provided scientists with their first detailed insights into the genes that regulate Wolbachia–host interactions (Brownlie & O'Neill 2005; Iturbe-Ormaetxe et al. 2005) and has allowed the targeted characterisation of potentially useful proteins (Kurz et al. 2008, 2009). Various groups based in Queensland and New South Wales have collaborated on investigations into the effect of Wolbachia on immune modulation and life-cycle disruption of infected insects, particularly with regard to the use of the parasite as a mosquito control agent (McMeniman et al. 2009; Moreira et al. 2009). They have also shown that the bacterium reduced mortality of virus-infected Drosophila by inhibiting viral replication (Hedges et al. 2008), a finding with implications for reducing the impact of arboviruses.

Jumper ant venom

The venom of the jumper ant Myrmecia pilosula F. Smith 1858 has also been partially characterised. The reason for this research was to explore the basis for human anaphylaxis with which this species has been associated (McGain & Winkel 2002; Brown et al. 2003). Initial experiments were conducted in the mid- to late 1990s and involved the electrophoretic separation of the native venom proteins (Donovan et al. 1995), expression and analysis of recombinant allergens (Donovan et al. 1996; Street et al. 1996) and analysis of cytotoxicity of the minor allergen, pilosulin 1 (King et al. 1998; Wu et al. 1998). Subsequent research subjected the venom to more advanced proteomic analysis (Davies et al. 2004; Wiese et al. 2006) and led to a more detailed understanding of the various allergens and their importance in anaphylaxis (Wiese et al. 2007). In collaboration with Japanese researchers, it was subsequently demonstrated that the novel peptide, pilosulin 5, caused dose-dependent release of histamine from rat peritoneal mast cells (Inagaki et al. 2008).

Honeybee research

The honeybee is a highly studied insect in Australia, both scientifically due to its eusociality (Honeybee Genome Sequencing Consortium 2006), and commercially due to being the key pollinator of our exotic crops plants. The Queensland Brain Institute (part of UQ) is a well-known research centre that has collaborated with various other Australian groups to produce a range of high-impact research papers attempting to characterise the neurological basis for how insects sense their environment using honeybees as a model. A mixture of behavioural and molecular studies has shed light on the neural processing associated with honeybee vision and chemosensation (e.g. Biswas et al. 2008, 2010). The ability to investigate and compare the protein repertoire of biological samples (proteomics) has been used for various entomological studies in Australia. The seminal fluid proteome of A. mellifera was examined by scientists from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, located at University of Western Australia (Baer et al. 2009). The honeybee genome has been mined by Australian researchers for the presence of various important regulatory proteins; a good example is an analysis of detoxification enzymes published in 2006 (Claudianos et al. 2006). Some work has been conducted on honeybee embryonic development at ANU; this work used gene-silencing and transcription analyses to implicate a chemosensory protein in regulation of integument development in bee embryos (Maleszka et al. 2007).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: A STUDY OF MOLECULAR FUNCTION
  5. INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA: THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS
  6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
  8. REFERENCES

Although the above discussion does not cover all of the insect molecular biology that has been conducted in Australia, it does cover most of the major projects and provides an insight into the key research groups. In addition, we have made efforts to cite a significant percentage of the recent Australian insect molecular biology publications so that this article acts as a portal to much of the Australian science and scientists in this field, as we have defined it in the introduction. We have not discussed in detail the ‘comparative molecular’ studies conducted in Australia (which are numerous) and as such, there are few references for such articles in this Overview.

Given the speed at which molecular technologies are advancing and the speed/ease with which transcriptome, proteome and genome data can now be obtained, it is likely we will see several global trends that will be reflected in Australia. For example, we would expect to see an decrease in the cost of relevant molecular technologies, a greater number of students trained in molecular biology and an increase in the value of insect molecular biology research undertaken (particularly by industry funding bodies).

Despite the significant amount of entomology undertaken in Australia, there are very few projects involving collaboration between molecular biologists and traditional/comparative molecular entomologists. This is likely due to key differences that we highlighted earlier between these areas of research, namely the background of the researchers involved, researcher focus and funding sources. Indeed, insect molecular biologists in Australia tend to present their work at conferences such as the annual Insect Molecular Biology Conference and/or the meeting of the Australian Society for Chemosensory Science, whereas those working in traditional and comparative molecular entomology are more likely to attend the meetings of the Australian Entomological Society or ecology/systematics-based conferences. There are very few researchers involved in both of these groups and there is limited collaboration between the groups.

Hopefully, in the future we will see much greater collaboration between molecular biology researchers and those researchers in the other areas of entomology. Such a trend would be beneficial to each area of entomological research in Australia, and Australian entomology as a whole, as neither of the fields stands alone and each can play a role in informing the others. Such collaborative projects that combine functional molecular and ecological/phylogenetic data would also increase the competitiveness of Australia on the global stage (particularly with respect to the USA where such projects are far more common) and lead to improvements in the global relevance, research outcomes and impact, of Australian entomology.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY: A STUDY OF MOLECULAR FUNCTION
  5. INSECT MOLECULAR BIOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA: THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS
  6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
  7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
  8. REFERENCES
  • Adams MD, Celniker SE, Holt RA et al. 2000. The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 287, 2185.
  • Amdt V, Dick N, Tawo R et al. 2010. Chaperone-assisted selective autophagy is essential for muscle maintenance. Current Biology 20, 143148.
  • Anderson A, Wanner K, Trowell S et al. 2009. Molecular basis of female-specific odorant responses in Bombyx mori. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 39, 189197.
  • Asgari S. 2006. Venom proteins from polydnavirus-producing endoparasitoids: their role in host–parasite interactions. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 61, 146156.
  • Asgari S, Hellers M & Schmidt O. 1996. Host haemocyte inactivation by an insect parasitoid: transient expression of a polydnavirus gene. Journal of General Virology 77, 26532662.
  • Asgari S, Zareie R, Zhang G & Schmidt O. 2003a. Isolation and characterisation of a novel venom protein from an endoparasitoid, Cotesia rubecula (Hym: Braconidae). Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 53, 92100.
  • Asgari S, Zhang G & Schmidt O. 2003b. Polydnavirus particle proteins with similarities to molecular chaperones, heat-shock protein 70 and calreticulin. Journal of General Virology 84, 11651171.
  • Asgari S, Davis J, Wood D, Wilson P & McGrath A. 2007. Sequence and organization of the Heliothis virescens ascovirus genome. Journal of General Virology 88, 11201132.
  • Athanasopoulos V, Barker A, Yu D et al. 2010. The ROQUIN family of proteins localizes to stress granules via the ROQ domain and binds target mRNAs. FEBS Journal 277, 21092127.
  • Baer B, Heazelwood J, Taylor M, Eubel H & Millar A. 2009. The seminal fluid proteome of the honeybee Apis mellifera. Proteomics 9, 20852097.
  • Bailey K. 2010. Making sense of it all: a review of olfactory biosensing. In: Nanotechnology in Australia: Showcase of Early Career Research (eds DKane, AMicolich & JRabeau), pp. 375408. Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore.
  • Batterham P, Crew J, Sokac A et al. 1996a. Genetic analysis of the lozenge gene complex in Drosophila melanogaster: adult visual system phenotypes. Journal of Neurogenetics 10, 193220.
  • Batterham P, Davies A, Game A & McKenzie J. 1996b. Asymmetry – where evolutionary and developmental genetics meet. BioEssays 81, 841845.
  • Batterham P, Hill-Williams A, Levot G, Sales N & McKenzie J. 2006. The genetic bases of high-level resistance to diflubenzuron and low-level resistance to cyromazine in a field strain of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Australian Journal of Entomology 45, 8790.
  • Behan K, Nichols C, Cheung T et al. 2002. Yan regulates Lozenge during Drosophila eye development. Development Genes and Evolution 212, 267276.
  • Behan K, Fair J, Singh S et al. 2005. Alternative splicing removes an Ets interaction domain from Lozenge during Drosophila eye development. Development Genes and Evolution 215, 423435.
  • Binks T, Lye J, Camakaris J & Burke R. 2010. Tissue-specific interplay between copper uptake and efflux in Drosophila. Journal of Biological and Inorganic Chemistry 15, 621628.
  • Birru W, Fernley R, Graham L et al. 2010. Synthesis, binding and bioactivity of g-methylene g-lactan ecdysone receptor ligands: advantages of QSAR models for flexible receptors. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry 18, 56475660.
  • Biswas S, Russell R, Jackson C et al. 2008. Bridging the synaptic gap: Neuroligins and Neurexin I in Apis mellifera. PLoS ONE 3, 119.
  • Biswas S, Reinhard J, Oakeshott J, Russell R, Srinivasan M & Claudianos C. 2010. Sensory regulation of Neuroligins and Neurexin I in the honeybee brain. PLoS ONE 5, 110.
  • Board P, Russell R, Marano R & Oakeshott J. 1994. Purification, molecular cloning and heterologous expression of a glutathione S-transferase from the Australian sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina). Biochemical Journal 299, 425430.
  • Bogwitz M, Chung H, Magoc L et al. 2005. Cyp12a4 confers lufenuron resistance in a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, 1280712812.
  • Brown S, Franks R, Baldo B & Heddle R. 2003. Prevalence, severity, and natural history of jack jumper ant venom allergy in Tasmania. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 111, 187192.
  • Brownlie J & O'Neill S. 2005. Wolbachia genomes: insights into an intracellular lifestyle. Current Biology 15, R507R509.
  • Brumby A, Zraly C, Horsfield J et al. 2002. Drosophila cyclin E interacts with components of the Brahma complex. EMBO Journal 21, 33773389.
  • Brumby A, Secombe J, Horsfield J et al. 2004. A genetic screen for dominant modifiers of a cyclin E hypomorphic mutation identifies novel regulators of S-phase entry in Drosophila. Genetics 168, 227251.
  • de Bruyne M & Warr C. 2005. Molecular and cellular organization of insect chemosensory neurons. BioEssays 28, 2334.
  • de Bruyne M, Smart R, Zammit E & Warr C. 2010. Functional and molecular evolution of olfactory neurons and receptors for aliphatic esters across the Drosophila genus. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 196, 97109.
  • Burke R, Nellen D, Bellotto M et al. 1999. Dispatched, a novel sterol-sensing domain protein dedicated to the release of cholesterol-modified Hedgehog from signalling cells. Cell 99, 803815.
  • Burke R, Commons E & Camakaris J. 2008. Expression and localisation of the essential copper transporter DmATP7 in Drosophila neuronal and intestinal tissues. International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology 40, 18501860.
  • Campbell P. 2008. Proteomic assessment of resistance to the fumigant phosphine in the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica. Journal of Stored Products Research 44, 389393.
  • Campbell P. 2010. Comparison of the mitochondrial proteomes of phosphine-susceptible and -resistant Tribolium castaneum. Journal of Stored Products Research 46, 197201.
  • Campbell P, Newcomb R, Russell R & Oakeshott J. 1998a. Two different types of amino acid substitutions in the ali-esterase, E3, confer alternative types of organophosphorus insecticide resistance in the sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 28, 139150.
  • Campbell P, Oakeshott J & Healy M. 1998b. Purification and kinetic characterisation of juvenile hormone esterase from Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 28, 501515.
  • Campbell P, Harcourt R, Crone E et al. 2001. Identification of a juvenile hormone esterase gene by matching its peptide mass fingerprint with a sequence from the Drosophila genome project. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 31, 513520.
  • Campbell P, de Q Robin GC, Court L et al. 2003. Developmental expression and gene/enzyme identifications in the alpha esterase gene cluster of Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Molecular Biology 12, 459471.
  • Carmichael J, Lawrence M, Graham L et al. 2005. The X-ray structure of a hemipteran ecdysone receptor ligand-binding domain. Journal of Biological Chemistry 280, 2225822269.
  • Carrington L, Leslie J, Weeks A & Hoffmann A. 2009. The Popcorn Wolbachia infection of Drosophila melanogaster: can selection alter Wolbachia longevity effects? Evolution 63, 26482657.
  • Chen Z, Newsome T, McKenzie J & Batterham P. 1998. Molecular characterisation of the Notch homologue from the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 28, 601612.
  • Chen Z, Newcomb R, Forbes E, McKenzie J & Batterham P. 2001. The acetylcholinesterase gene and organophosphorus resistance in the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 31, 805816.
  • Chen Z, Robin C, Damiano J et al. 2006. Positional cloning of a cyromazine resistance gene in Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Molecular Biology 15, 181186.
  • Chung H, Bogwitz M, McCart C et al. 2007. Cis-regulatory elements in the Accord retrotransposon result in tissue-specific expression of the Drosophila melanogaster insecticide resistance gene Cyp6g1. Genetics 175, 10711077.
  • Chung H, Sztal T, Pasricha S, Sridhar M, Batterham P & Daborn P. 2009. Characterisation of Drosophila melanogaster cytochrome P450 genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 57315736.
  • Chyb S. 2007. Drosophila Gr5a: expression pattern, ligand profile and transduction pathway. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Part A, Molecular and Integrative Physiology 146, S97.
  • Clarkson M & Saint R. 1999. A His2AvDGFP fusion gene complements a lethal His2AvD mutant allele and provides an in vivo marker for Drosophila chromosome behaviour. DNA and Cell Biology 18, 457462.
  • Clarkson M, Wells J, Gibson F, Saint R & Tremethick D. 1999. Regions of variant histone His2AvD required for Drosophila development. Nature 399, 694697.
  • Claudianos C, Russell R & Oakeshott J. 1999. The same amino acid substitution in orthologous esterases confers organophosphorus resistance on the house fly and a blowfly. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 29, 675686.
  • Claudianos C, Ranson H, Johnson R et al. 2006. A deficit of detoxification enzymes: pesticide sensitivity and environmental response in the honeybee. Insect Molecular Biology 15, 615636.
  • Cleveland L, Hall S, Sanders E & Collier J. 1934. The wood feeding roach Cryptocercus, and its protozoa, and the symbiosis between protozoa and roach. Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 17, 185382.
  • Collinge D, Gordon K, Behm C & Whyard S. 2007. Stable transformation and RNAi in Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Insect Science 7, 152.
  • Cooper T, Bailey-Hill K, Leifert W, McMurchie E, Asgari S & Glatz R. 2011. Identification of an in vitro interaction between an insect immune-suppressor protein (CrV2) and Gα proteins. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286, 1046610475.
  • Coulson M, Robert S, Eyre H & Saint R. 1998. The identification and localization of a human gene with sequence similarity to Polycomblike of Drosophila melanogaster. Genomics 48, 381383.
  • Crack D, Secombe J, Coombe M, Brumby A, Saint R & Richardson H. 2002. Analysis of Drosophila cyclin EI and II function during development: identification of an inhibitory zone within the morphogenetic furrow of the eye imaginal disc that blocks the function of cyclin EI but not cyclin EII. Development 241, 151171.
  • Crew J, Batterham P & Pollock J. 1997. Developing compound eye in lozenge mutants of Drosophila: lozenge expression in the R7 equivalence group. Development Genes and Evolution 206, 481493.
  • Crone E, Zera A, Anan A et al. 2007. Jhe in Gryllus assimilis: cloning, sequence–activity associations and phylogeny. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 37, 13591365.
  • Daborn P, Yen J, Bogwitz M et al. 2002. A single P450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila. Science 297, 22532256.
  • Daborn P, Lumb C, Boey A, Wong W, Ffrench-Constant R & Batterham P. 2007. Evaluating the insecticide resistance potential of eight Drosophila melanogaster cytochrome P450 genes by transgenic over-expression. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 37, 512519.
  • D'Andrea R, Stratmann R, Lehner C, John U & Saint R. 1993. The three rows gene of Drosophiala melanogaster encodes a novel protein that is required for chromosome disjunction during mitosis. Molecular Biology of the Cell 4, 11611174.
  • Davies N, Wiese M & Brown S. 2004. Characterisation of major peptides in the ‘jack jumper’ ant venom by mass spectrometry. Toxicon 43, 173183.
  • Devonshire A, Heidari R, Huang H, Hammock B, Russell R & Oakeshott J. 2007. Hydrolysis of individual isomers of flurogenic pyrethroid analogs by mutant carboxylesterases from Lucilia cuprina. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 37, 891902.
  • Dobritsa A, van der van Naters W, Warr C, Steinbrecht R & Carlson J. 2003. Integrating the molecular and cellular basis of odor coding in the Drosophila antenna. Neuron 37, 827841.
  • Donovan G, Street M & Baldo B. 1995. Separation of jumper ant (Myrmecia pilosula) venom allergens: a novel group of highly basic proteins. Electrophoresis 16, 804810.
  • Donovan G, Street M, Tetaz T et al. 1996. Expression of jumper ant (Myrmecia pilosula) venom allergens: post-translational processing of allergen gene products. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology International 39, 877885.
  • Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium. 2007. Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny. Nature 450, 203218.
  • Elvin C, Carr A, Huson M et al. 2005. Synthesis and properties of crosslinked recombinant pro-resilin. Nature 437, 9991002.
  • Frydenberg J, Hoffmann A & Loeschcke V. 2003. DNA sequence variation and latitudinal associations in hsp23, hsp26 and hsp27 from natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Molecular Ecology 12, 20252032.
  • Glatz R & Bailey-Hill K. 2011. Mimicking nature's noses: from receptor deorphaning to olfactory biosensing. Progress in Neurobiology 93, 270296.
  • Glatz R, Schmidt O & Asgari S. 2003. Characterization of a novel protein with homology to C-type lectins expressed by the Cotesia rubecula bracovirus in larvae of the lepidopteran host, Pieris rapae. Journal of Biological Chemistry 278, 1974319750.
  • Glatz R, Schmidt O & Asgari S. 2004a. Isolation and characterization of a Cotesia rubecula bracovirus gene expressed in the lepidopteran Pieris rapae. Journal of General Virology 85, 28732882.
  • Glatz R, Asgari S & Schmidt O. 2004b. Evolution of polydnaviruses as insect immune suppressors. Trends in Microbiology 12, 545554.
  • Gordon K, Colebatch G, Campbell P, Horne I & East P. 2007. Functional genomics of the midgut of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Insect Science 7, 152.
  • Graham L, Johnson W, Pawlak-Skrzecz A et al. 2007a. Ligand-binding by recombinant domains from insect ecdysone receptors. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 37, 611626.
  • Graham L, Pilling P, Eaton R et al. 2007b. Purification and characterization of recombinant ligand-binding domains from the ecdysone receptors of four pest insects. Protein Expression and Purification 53, 309324.
  • Gregory S, Kortschak R, Kalionis B & Saint R. 1996. Characterisation of the dead ringer gene identifies a novel, highly conserved family of sequence-specific DNA-binding proteins. Molecular and Cellular Biology 16, 792799.
  • Gregory S, Shandala T, O'Keefe L, Jones L, Murray M & Saint R. 1997. A Drosophila overexpression screen for modifiers of Rho signalling in cytokinesis. Fly 1, 1322.
  • Gregory S, Ebrahimi S, Milverton J, Jones W, Bejsovec A & Saint R. 2008. Cell division requires a direct link between microtubule-bound RacGAP and anillin in the contractile ring. Current Biology 18, 2529.
  • Hader T, Wainwright D, Shandala T et al. 2000. Receptor tyrosine kinase signalling regulates different modes of Groucho-dependent control of Dorsal. Current Biology 10, 5154.
  • Hannan G & Hill R. 1997. Cloning and characterisation of LcEcR1: a functional ecdysone receptor from the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 27, 479488.
  • Hannan G & Hill R. 2001. Lcusp, an ultraspiracle gene from the sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina: cDNA cloning, developmental expression of RNA and confirmation of function. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 31, 771781.
  • Harshman L, Hoffmann A & Clark A. 1999. Selection for starvation resistance in Drosophila melanogaster: physiological correlates, enzyme activities and multiple stress responses. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12, 370379.
  • Hayward D, Samuel G, Pontynen P et al. 2002. Localized expression of a dpp/BMP2/4 ortholog in a coral embryo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 81068111.
  • Hedges L, Brownlie J, O'Neill S & Johnson K. 2008. Wolbachia and virus protection in insects. Science 322, 702.
  • Heidari R, Devonshire A, Campbell P et al. 2004. Hydrolysis of organophosphorus insecticides by in vitro modified carboxylesterase E3 from Lucilia cuprina. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 34, 353363.
  • Heidari R, Devonshire A, Campbell P, Dorrian S, Oakeshott J & Russell R. 2005. Hydrolysis of pyrethroids by carboxylesterases from Lucilia cuprina and Drosophila melanogaster with active sites modified by in vitro mutagenesis. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 35, 597609.
  • Hime G & Saint R. 1992. Zygotic expression of the pebble locus is required for cytokinesis during the postblastoderm mitoses of Drosophila. Development 114, 165171.
  • Hime G, Prior L & Saint R. 1995. The Drosophila melanogaster genome contains a member of the Rh/T2/S-glycoprotein family of ribonuclease-encoding genes. Gene 158, 203207.
  • Hirth F. 2010. Drosophila melanogaster in the study of human neurodegeneration. CNS and Neurological Disorders – Drug Targets 9, 504523.
  • Hoffmann A & Hercus M. 2000. Environmental stress as an evolutionary force. BioScience 50, 217226.
  • Hoffmann A & Weeks A. 2007. Climatic selection on genes and traits after a 100 year-old invasion: a critical look at the temperate-tropical clines in Drosophila melanogaster from eastern Australia. Genetica 129, 133147.
  • Hoffmann A & Willi Y. 2008. Detecting genetic responses to environmental changes. Nature Reviews Genetics 9, 421432.
  • Hoffmann A, Sorensen J & Loeschcke V. 2003. Adaptation of Drosophila to temperature extremes: bringing together quantitative and molecular approaches. Journal of Thermal Biology 28, 175216.
  • Hoffmann A, Sgro C & Weeks A. 2004. Chromosomal inversion polymorphisms and adaptation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, 482488.
  • Hoffmann A, Woods R, Collins E, Wallin K, White A & McKenzie J. 2005. Wing shape versus asymmetry as an indicator of changing environmental condition in insects. Australian Journal of Entomology 44, 233243.
  • Honeybee Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2006. Insights into the social insects from the genome of the honeybee Apis mellifera. Nature 443, 931949.
  • Hussain M & Asgari S. 2008. Inhibition of apoptosis by Heliothhis virescens ascovirus (HvAV-3e): characterisation of orf28II with structural similarity to inhibitor of apoptosis proteins. Apoptosis 13, 14171426.
  • Hussain M, Garrad S & Asgari S. 2009. The role of actin filaments in ascovirus replication and pathology. Archives of Virology 154, 17371743.
  • Hussain M, Abraham A & Asgari S. 2010. An ascovirus-encoded RNase III autoregulates its expression and suppresses RNA interference-mediated gene silencing. Journal of Virology 84, 36243630.
  • Inagaki H, Akagi M, Imai H et al. 2008. Pilosulin 5, a novel histamine-releasing peptide from the Australian ant, Myrmecia pilosula (Jack Jumper Ant). Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 477, 411416.
  • International Aphid Genomics Consortium. 2010. Genome sequence of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum. PLoS Biology 8, 124.
  • Inward D, Beccaloni G & Eggleton P. 2007. Death of an order: a comprehensive molecular phylogenetic study confirms that termites are eusocial cockroaches. Biology Letters 3, 331335.
  • Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Burke G, Riegler M & O'Neill S. 2005. Distribution, expression and motif variability of ankyrin domain genes in Wolbachia pipientis. Journal of Bacteriology 187, 51365145.
  • Jensen L, Cockerell F, Kristensen T et al. 2010. Adult heat tolerance variation in Drosophila melanogaster is not related to Hsp70 expression. Journal of Experimental Zoology 313A, 3544.
  • Johnson T, Cockerell F, Carrington L, Rako L, Hoffmann A & McKechnie S. 2009. The capacity of Drosophila to heat harden associates with low rates of heat-shock protein synthesis. Journal of Thermal Biology 34, 327331.
  • Jones W, Chao A, Zavortink M, Saint R & Bejsovec A. 2010. Cytokinesis proteins Tum and Pav have a nuclear role in Wnt regulation. Journal of Cell Science 123, 21792202.
  • Jones L, Richardson H & Saint R. 2000. Tissue-specific regulation of cyclin E transcription during Drosophila melanogaster embryogenesis. Development 127, 46194630.
  • Jordan M, Anderson A, Begum D et al. 2009. Odorant receptors from the Light brown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana) recognize important volatile compounds produced by plants. Chemical Senses 34, 383394.
  • Kiely A, Authier A, Kralicek AV, Warr C & Newcomb RD. 2007. Functional analysis of a Drosophila melanogaster olfactory receptor expressed in Sf9 cells. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 159, 189194.
  • King M, Wu Q-X, Donovan G & Baldo B. 1998. Flow cytometric analysis of cell killing by the jumper ant venom peptide Pilosulin 1. Cytometry 32, 268273.
  • Knibb W, Tearle R, Elizur A & Saint R. 1993. Genetic analysis of chromosomal region 97D2-9 of Drosophila melanogaster. Molecular and General Genetics 239, 109114.
  • Knoblich J, Sauer K, Jones L, Richardson H, Saint R & Lehner C. 1994. Cyclin E controls S phase progression and its down-regulation during Drosophila embryogenesis is required for arrest of cell proliferation. Cell 77, 107120.
  • Korayem A, Hauling T, Lesch C et al. 2007. Evidence for an immune function of lepidopteran silk proteins. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 352, 317322.
  • Kortschak R, Tucker P & Saint R. 2000. ARID proteins come in from then desert. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 25, 294299.
  • Kurz M, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Jarrot R et al. 2008. Cloning, expression, purification and a DsbA-like protein from Wolbachia pipientis. Protein Expression and Purification 59, 266273.
  • Kurz M, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Jarrot R et al. 2009. Structural and functional characterisation of the oxidoreductase a-DsbA1 from Wolbachia pipientis. Antioxidants and Redox Signaling 11, 14851500.
  • Kylsten P & Saint R. 1997. Imaginal tissues of Drosophila melanogaster exhibit different modes of cell proliferation control. Developmental Biology 192, 509522.
  • Lehman D, Patterson B, Johnston L et al. 1999. Cis-regulatory elements of the mitotic regulator, string/Cdc25. Development 126, 17931803.
  • Leifert W, Glatz R, Bailey K et al. 2009. Nanoscale biosensors and biochips. In: Annual Review of Nano Research (eds GCao, QZhang & CBrinker), pp. 182. World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore.
  • Lockett T, Lewy D, Holmes P, Medveczky K & Saint R. 1992. The rough (ro+) gene as a dominant P-element marker in germ line transformation of Drosophila melanogaster. Gene 114, 187193.
  • Lockett T, Moretti P, Lake J-A & Saint R. 1993. Rough genes with Deformed homeobox substitutions exhibit rough regulatory specificity during Drosophila eye development. Mechanisms of Development 41, 5768.
  • Lonie A, D'Andrea R, Paro R & Saint R. 1994. Molecular characterisation of the Polycomblike gene of Drosophila melanogaster, a trans-acting negative regulator of homeotic gene expression. Development 120, 26292636.
  • Low W, Ng H, Morton C, Parker M, Batterham P & Robin C. 2007. Molecular evolution of glutathione S-transferases in the genus Drosophila. Genetics 177, 13631375.
  • Low W, Feil S, Ng H et al. 2010. Recognition and detoxification of the insecticide DDT by Drosophila melanogaster glutathione S-transferase D1. Journal of Molecular Biology 399, 358366.
  • Maleszka J, Foret S, Saint R & Maleszka R. 2007. RNAi-induced phenotypes suggest a novel role for a chemosensory protein CSP5 in the development of embryonic integument in the honeybee (Apis mellifera). Development Genes and Evolution 217, 189196.
  • Marshall B, Warr C & de Bruyne M. 2010. Detection of volatiles of illicit substances by the olfactory receptors of Drosophila melanogaster. Chemical Senses 35, 613625.
  • McGain F & Winkel K. 2002. Ant sting mortality in Australia. Toxicon 40, 10951100.
  • McKechnie S, Halford M, McColl G & Hoffmann A. 1998. Both allelic variation and expression of nuclear and cytoplasmic transcripts of Hsr-omega are closely associated with thermal phenotype in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95, 24232428.
  • McKechnie S, Blacket M, Song S et al. 2010. A clinally varying promoter polymorphism associated with adaptive variation in wing size in Drosophila. Molecular Ecology 19, 775784.
  • McMeniman C, Lane R, Cass B et al. 2009. Stable introduction of a life-shortening Wolbachia infection into the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Science 323, 141144.
  • Milton C, Huynh B, Batterham P, Rutherford S & Hoffmann A. 2003. Quantitative trait symmetry independent of Hsp90 buffering: distinct modes of genetic canalization and developmental stability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100, 1339613401.
  • Milton C, Batterham P, McKenzie J & Hoffmann A. 2005. Effect of E(sev) and Su(Raf) Hsp83 mutants and trans-heterozygotes on bristle trait means and variation in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 171, 119130.
  • Mitchell A. 2008. DNA barcoding demystified. Australian Journal of Entomology 47, 169173.
  • Moreira L, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Jeffery J et al. 2009. A Wolbachia symbiont in Aedes aegypti limits infection with dengue, chikungunya, and Plasmodium. Cell 139, 12681278.
  • Murray M & Saint R. 2007. Photoactivatable GFP resolves Drosophila mesoderm migration behaviour. Development 134, 39753983.
  • Mutti N, Louis J, Pappan L et al. 2008. A protein from the salivary glands of the pea aphid, Acrythosiphon pisum, is essential in feeding on a host plant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 99659969.
  • Nasonia Genome Working Group. 2010. Functional and evolutionary insights from the genomes of three parasitoid Nasonia species. Science 327, 343348.
  • Newcomb R, East P, Russell R & Oakeshott J. 1996. Isolation of a cluster esterase genes associated with organophosphate resistance in Lucilia cuprina. Insect Molecular Biology 5, 211216.
  • Newcomb R, Campbell P, Ollis D, Cheah E, Russell R & Oakeshott J. 1997a. A single amino acid substitution converts a carboxylesterase to an organophosphorus hydrolase and confers insecticide resistance on a blowfly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94, 74647468.
  • Newcomb R, Campbell P, Russell R & Oakeshott J. 1997b. cDNA cloning, baculovirus-expression and kinetic properties of the esterase, E3, involved in organophosphorus resistance in Lucilia cuprina. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 27, 1525.
  • Norgate M, Lee E, Southon A et al. 2006. Essential roles in development and pigmentation for the Drosophila copper transporter DmATP7. Molecular Biology of the Cell 17, 475484.
  • Oakeshott J, Horne I, Sutherland T & Russell R. 2003. Then genomics of insecticide resistance. Genome Biology 4, 202.201202.204.
  • Oakeshott J, Johnson R, Berenbaum M, Ranson H, Cristino A & Claudianos C. 2010. Metabolic enzymes associated with xenobiotic and chemosensory responses in Nasonia vitripennis. Insect Molecular Biology 19, 147163.
  • O'Connell S, Wang L, Robert S, Jones C, Saint R & Jones R. 2001. Polycomblike PHD fingers mediate conserved interaction with the enhancer of zeste protein. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276, 4306543073.
  • Odgers W, Aquadro C, Coppin C, Healy M & Oakeshott J. 2002. Nucleotide polymorphism in the Est6 promoter, which is widespread in derived populations of Drosophila melanogaster, changes in the level of Esterase 6 expressed in the male ejaculatory duct. Genetics 162, 785797.
  • O'Keefe L, Somers W, Harley A & Saint R. 2001. The pebble GTP exchange factor and the control of cytokinesis. Cell Structure and Function 26, 619626.
  • O'Keefe L, Liu Y, Perkins A, Dayan S, Saint R & Richards R. 2005. FRA16D common chromosomal fragile site oxido-reductase (FOR/WWOX) protects against the effects of ionizing radiation in Drosophila. Oncogene 24, 65906596.
  • O'Keefe L, Smibert P, Colella A, Chataway T, Saint R & Richards R. 2007. Know thy fly. Trends in Genetics 23, 238242.
  • Perry T, McKenzie J & Batterham P. 2007. A Da6 knockout strain of Drosophila melanogaster confers a high level of resistance to spinosad. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 37, 184188.
  • Perry T, Heckel D, McKenzie J & Batterham P. 2008. Mutations in Da1 or Db2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits can confer resistance to neonicotinoids in Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 38, 520528.
  • Prokopenko S, Brumby A, O'Keefe L et al. 1999. A putative exchange factor for Rho1 GTPase is required for initiation of cytokinesis in Drosophila. Genes and Development 13, 23012314.
  • Prokopenko S, Saint R & Bellen H. 2000a. Tissue distribution of PEBBLE RNA and Pebble protein during Drosophila embryonic development. Mechanisms of Development 90, 269273.
  • Prokopenko S, Saint R & Bellen H. 2000b. Untying the Gordion knot of cytokinesis: role of small G proteins and their regulators. Journal of Cell Biology 148, 843848.
  • Pyke F, Bogwitz M, Perry T, Monk A, Batterham P & McKenzie J. 2004. The genetic basis of resistance to daizinon in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica 131, 1324.
  • Rahman M, Roberts H & Schmidt O. 2007. Tolerance to Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxin in immune-suppressed larvae of the flour moth Ephestia kuehniella. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 96, 125132.
  • Ramirez J & Dimopoulos G. 2010. The Toll immune signalling pathway control conserved anti-dengue defenses across diverse Ae. aegypti strains and against multiple dengue virus serotypes. Developmental and Comparative Immunology 34, 625629.
  • Richardson H, O'Keefe L, Reed S & Saint R. 1993. A Drosophila G1-specific cyclin E homolog exhibits different modes of expression during embryogenesis. Development 119, 673690.
  • Richardson H, O'Keefe L, Marty T & Saint R. 1995. Ectopic cyclin E expression induces premature entry into S phase and disrupts pattern formation in the eye imaginal disc. Development 121, 33713379.
  • Robin C, Daborn P & Hoffmann A. 2006. Fighting fly genes. Trends in Genetics 23, 5154.
  • Russell R, Robin G, Kostakos P et al. 1996. Molecular cloning of an a-esterase gene cluster on chromosome 3R of Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 26, 235247.
  • Russell R, Claudianos C, Campbell P, Horne I, Sutherland T & Oakeshott J. 2004. Two major classes of target site insensitivity mutations confer resistance to organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 79, 8493.
  • Saint R & Clarkson M. 2000. A functional marker for Drosophila chromosomes in vivo. Trends in Cell Biology 10, 553.
  • Saint R & Patterson B. 1993. Zygotic transcription and cell proliferation during Drosophila embryogenesis. Genetica 90, 157163.
  • Saint R & Somers W. 2003. Animal cell division: a fellowship of the double ring? Journal of Cell Science 116, 42774281.
  • Saint R, Kalionis B, Lockett T & Elizur A. 1988. Pattern formation in the developing eye of Drosophila melanogaster is regulated by the homeo-box gene, rough. Nature 334, 151154.
  • Sanokawa-Akakura R, Cao W, Allan K et al. 2010. Control of Alzheimer's amyloid beta toxicity by the high molecular weight immunophilin FKBP52 and copper homeostasis in Drosophila. PLoS ONE 5, 110.
  • Schmidt J, Good R, Appleton B et al. 2010a. Copy number, variation and transposable elements featured in recent, ongoing adaptation at the Cyp6g1 locus. PLoS Genetics 6, 111.
  • Schmidt O, Soderhall K, Theopold U & Faye I. 2010b. Role of adhesion in arthropod immune recognition. Annual Review of Entomology 55, 485504.
  • Secombe J, Pispa J, Saint R & Richardson H. 1998. Analysis of a Drosophila cyclin E hypomorphic mutation suggests a novel role for cyclin E in cell proliferation control during eye imaginal disc development. Genetics 149, 18671882.
  • Sgro C, Milton C, Jensen L et al. 2008. Nucleotide diversity in the Hsp90 gene in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster from Australia. Insect Molecular Biology 17, 685697.
  • Sgro C, Wegener B & Hoffmann A. 2010. A naturally occurring variant of Hsp90 that is associated with decanalisation. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Series B 277, 20492057.
  • Shandala T, Kortschak R, Gregory S & Saint R. 1999. The Drosophila dead ringer gene is required for early embryonic patterning through regulation of argos and buttonhead expression. Development 126, 43414349.
  • Shandala T, Kortschak R & Saint R. 2002. The Drosophila retained/dead ringer gene and ARID gene family function during development. International Journal of Developmental Biology 46, 423430.
  • Shandala T, Takizawa K & Saint R. 2003. The dead ringer/retained transcriptional regulatory gene is required for positioning of the longitudinal glia in the Drosophila embryonic CNS. Development 130, 15051513.
  • Shandala T, Gregory S, Dalton H, Smallhorn M & Saint R. 2004. Citron kinase is an essential effector of the Pbl-activated Rho signalling pathway in Drosophila melanogaster. Development 131, 50535063.
  • Siddall N, Behan K, Crew J et al. 2003. Mutations in lozenge and D-Pax2 invoke ectopic patterned cell death in the developing Drosophila eye using distinct mechanisms. Development Genes and Evolution 213, 107119.
  • Siddall N, Hime G, Pollock J & Batterham P. 2009. Ttk69-dependent regression of lozenge prevents the ectopic development of R7 cells in the Drosophila larval eye disc. BMC Developmental Biology 9, 6483.
  • Smallhorn M, Murray M & Saint R. 2004. The epithelial-mesenchymal transition of the Drosophila mesoderm requires the Rho GTP exchange factor Pebble. Development 131, 26412651.
  • Smart R, Kiely A, Beale M et al. 2008. Drosophila odorant receptors are novel seven transmembrane domain proteins that can signal independently of heterotrimeric G proteins. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 38, 770780.
  • Smede M, Hussain M & Asgari S. 2009. A lipase-like gene from Heliothis virescens ascovirus (HvAV-3e) is essential for virus replication and cell cleavage. Virus Genes 39, 409417.
  • Smyth K-A, Russell R & Oakeshott J. 1994. A cluster of at least three esterase genes in Lucilia cuprina includes malathion carboxylesterase and two other esterases implicated in resistance to organophosphates. Biochemical Genetics 31, 437453.
  • Somers W & Saint R. 2003. A RhoGEF and Rho family GTPase-activating protein complex links the contractile ring to cortical microtubules at the onset of cytokinesis. Developmental Cell 4, 2939.
  • Southon A, Burke R, Norgate M, Batterham P & Camakaris J. 2004. Copper homeostasis in Drosophila melanogaster S2 cells. Biochemical Journal 383, 303309.
  • Southon A, Farlow A, Norgate M, Burke R & Camakaris J. 2008. Malvolio is a copper transporter in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 709716.
  • Southon A, Palstra N, Veldhuis N et al. 2010. Conservation of copper-transporting P(IB)-type ATPase function. Biometals 23, 681694.
  • Stocker R, Gendre N & Batterham P. 1993. Analysis of the antennal phenotype in the Drosophila mutant lozenge. Journal of Neurogenetics 9, 2953.
  • Street M, Donovan G & Baldo B. 1996. Molecular cloning and characterization of the major allergen Myr p II from the venom of the jumper ant Myrmecia pilosula: Myr p I and Myr p II share a common protein leader sequence. Biochimica et Biphysica Acta 1305, 8797.
  • Sun N-K, Sun C-L, Lin C-H, Pai L-M & Chao C. 2010. Damaged DNA-binding protein 2 (DDB2) protects against UV irradiation in human cells and Drosophila. Journal of Biomedical Science 17, 2740.
  • Tagu D, Dugravot S, Outreman Y, Rispe C, Simon J-C & Colella S. 2010. The anatomy of an aphid genome: from sequence to biology. Comptes Rendus Biologies 333, 464473.
  • Teese M, Campbell P, Scott C et al. 2010. Gene identification and proteomic analysis of the esterases of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 40, 116.
  • Telonis-Scott M, Hallas R, McKechnie S, Wee C & Hoffmann A. 2009. Selection for cold resistance alters gene transcript levels in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Insect Physiology 55, 549555.
  • Thomas P, Yamada R, Johnson K & Asgari S. 2010. Ectopic expression of an endoparasitic wasp venom protein in Drosophila melanogaster affects immune function, larval development and oviposition. Insect Molecular Biology 19, 473480.
  • Umina P, Weeks A, Kearney M, McKechnie S & Hoffmann A. 2005. A rapid shift in a classical clinal pattern in Drosophila reflecting climate change. Science 308, 691693.
  • Valentine S, Chen G, Shandala T et al. 1998. Dorsal-mediated repression requires the formation of a multiprotein repression complex at the ventral silencer. Molecular and Cellular Biology 18, 65846594.
  • Warr C & Kelly L. 1996. Identification and characterization of two distinct calmodulin-binging sites in the TrpI ion-channel protein of Drosophila melanogaster. Biochemical Journal 314, 497503.
  • Wee C, Robin C & Heckel D. 2007. A genomic approach to studying pyrethroid resistance in the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Insect Science 7, 152.
  • Wee C, Lee S, Robin C & Heckel D. 2008. Identification of candidate genes for fenvalerate resistance in Helicoverpa armigera using cDNA-AFLP. Insect Molecular Biology 17, 351360.
  • Weeks A, McKechnie S & Hoffmann A. 2006. In search of clinal variation in the period and clock timing genes in Australian Drosophila melanogaster populations. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19, 551557.
  • Wiese M, Chataway T, Davies N et al. 2006. Proteomic analysis of Myrmecia pilosula (jack jumper) ant venom. Toxicon 47, 208217.
  • Wiese M, Brown S, Chataway T et al. 2007. Myrmecia pilosula (Jack Jumper) ant venom: identification of allergens and revised nomenclature. Allergy 62, 437443.
  • Wilanowski T, Tuckfield A, Cerruti L et al. 2002. A highly conserved novel family of mammalian developmental transcription factors related to Drosophila grainyhead. Mechanisms of Development 114, 3750.
  • Williams A, Batterham P & Heckel D. 2007. Progress in gene manipulation in the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Insect Science 7, 152.
  • Willoughby L, Chung H, Lumb C, Robin C, Batterham P & Daborn P. 2006. A comparison of Drosophila melanogaster detoxification gene induction responses for six insecticides, caffeine and phenobarbital. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 36, 934942.
  • Willoughby L, Batterham P & Daborn P. 2007. Piperonyl butoxide induces the expression of cytochrome P450 and glutathione S-transferase genes in Drosophila melanogaster. Pest Management Science 63, 803808.
  • Wu M, Sun L, Vamathevan J et al. 2004. Phylogenomics of the reproductive parasite Wolbachia pipietnis wMel: a streamlined genome overrun by mobile genetic elements. PLoS Biology 2, 327341.
  • Wu Q-X, King M, Donovan G et al. 1998. Cytotoxicity of pilosulin 1, a peptide from the venom of the jumper ant, Myrmecia pilosula. Biochimica et Biphysica Acta 1425, 7480.
  • Yang H, Peng J, Liu K & Hong H. 2006. Diversity and function of symbiotic microbes in the gut of lower termites. Acta Microbiologica Sinica 46, 496499.
  • Zavortink M, Contreras N, Addy T, Bejsovec A & Saint R. 2005. Tum/RacGAP50C provides a critical link between anaphase microtubules and the assembly of the contractile ring in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Cell Science 118, 53815392.
  • Zhang G, Lu Z-Q, Jiang H & Asgari S. 2004a. Negative regulation of prophenoloxidase (proPO) activation by a clip-domain serine protease homolog (SPH) from endoparasitoid venom. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 34, 477483.
  • Zhang G, Schmidt O & Asgari S. 2004b. A novel venom protein from an endoparasitoid wasp is required for expression of polydnavirus genes in host hemocytes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279, 4158041585.
  • Zhang G, Schmidt O & Asgari S. 2006. A calreticulin-like protein from endoparasitoid venom fluid is involved in host hemocyte activation. Developmental and Comparative Immunology 30, 756764.