spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online January 16, 2009
Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 435-445 (2009)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2009
doi: 10.1242/jeb.024224
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JEB
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dow, J. A. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Dow, J. A. T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Insights into the Malpighian tubule from functional genomics

Julian A. T. Dow

Integrative and Systems Biology, Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G11 6NU, UK


Figure 1
View larger version (69K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Three views of the Drosophila tubule. Centre: the classical morphological view (Wessing and Eichelberg, 1978Go). Left, a genetically derived enhancer trap view, with some representative enhancer trap expression patterns (Sözen et al., 1997Go). Right, a summary of the physiology of the tubule (Dow and Davies, 2003Go): the stellate cells in the micrograph at the top are in fact lit with UAS-GFP, driven by the stellate cell-specific GAL4 line c724. CRF, corticotropin releasing factor; LK, leucokinin. [From Kerr et al. (Kerr et al. 2004Go).]

 

Figure 2
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Manipulation of cGMP levels in the Malpighian tubule by cell-specific transgenic expression of a rat atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) receptor. The results refer to flies in which expression of UAS-GC-A was driven ubiquitously by heat-shock GAL4, in tubule principal cells by GAL4 line c42, or in tubule stellate cells by GAL4 line c724. (A) Effects on whole-tubule cGMP. The receptor can drive increases in cGMP in either principal or stellate cells. (B) Fluid secretion. Elevation of cGMP in either principal or stellate cells elicits increased fluid secretion. Asterisks denote significant difference from corresponding control values (Student's t-test, P<0.05). [From Kerr et al. (Kerr et al., 2004Go).]

 

Figure 3
View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Genes corresponding to different functional classes found to be enriched or highly abundant in adult Drosophila Malpighian tubule (Wang et al., 2004Go).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Innate immunity by tissue-specific expression of antimicrobial peptides is conserved across insects, mammals and plants (from Tzou et al., 2000Go).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. The Malpighian tubule is limiting in xenobiotic handling by adult Drosophila. These probit curves show 24 h mortality of flies exposed to given amounts of DDT. Flies in which cyp6g1 is either (A) knocked down by RNAi or (B) over-expressed, in just the tubule principal cells by the c42 GAL4 driver, are compared with their respective parents. The RNAi lines are over two times as sensitive and the over-expressing lines are about half as sensitive as their parental control lines, confirming that the tubule is limiting in the handling of this xenobiotic. [Adapted from Yang et al. (Yang et al., 2007Go).]

 

Figure 6
View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Typical FlyAtlas (http://flyatlas.org) output. In this case, the search was for `urate oxidase'. Even though this dataset is based on highly technical microarray data, it is easy to deduce that this is effectively a tubule-specific gene.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 7. (A–C) Colocalization of the plasma membrane V-ATPase with the two Drosophila CPA2 family members. Both transcripts for CG10806 and the one transcript for CG31052 were fused to eYFP and placed under control of the UAS promoter, and transgenic flies were made. The constructs were driven in tubule principal cells with c42-GAL4, and the apical localization was demonstrated by counterstaining nuclei with DAPI. For comparison, the apical expression of an eGFP-tagged V-ATPase subunit is shown in D, and apical and basolateral domains are differentiated in E with a GFP gene trap insertion in vhaSFD, counterstained with a monoclonal antibody to Na+,K+-ATPase. AM, apical membrane; BM, basolateral membrane; Lu, apical tubule lumen. Scale bars in A–C, 10µm. [From Day et al. (Day et al., 2008Go).]

 

Figure 8
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 8. Mapping the impact of the rosy mutation (ry). The molecular lesion affects xanthine oxidase, the enzyme which catalyses the conversion of xanthine to urate; however, the perturbations induced by the lesion can be traced much further away than previously possible by classical analytical biochemistry. [From Kamleh et al. (Kamleh et al., 2008Go).]

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2009