Differences in Cellular mechanics and ECM dynamics shape differential development of wing and haltere in Drosophila
Dilsha, C.; Shiju, S.; Shah, N. A.; Inamdar, M. M.; Shashidhara, L. S.
Show abstract
Diverse organ shapes and sizes arise from the complex interplay between cellular properties, mechanical forces, and gene regulation. Drosophila wing-a flat structure and the globular haltere are two homologous flight appendages emerging from a similar group of progenitor cells. The activity of a single Hox transcription factor, Ultrabithorax (Ubx), governs the development of these two distinct organs-wing and haltere with different cell and organ morphologies. Our work reported here on differential development of wing and haltere suggest that the localisation and abundance of actomyosin complexes, apical cell contractility, properties of extracellular matrix, and cell size and shape, which is a result of various cell intrinsic and extrinsic forces, plausibly influence the flat vs. globular geometry of these two organs. We followed the three-dimensional architecture of developing wing and halteres during early pupal morphogenesis, indicating the role of the above-mentioned factors in force generation and in driving differential morphogenesis, leading to different organ shapes. Loss of Ubx function led to wing cell-like cellular features in haltere discs, and corresponding changes at the level of adult organs. We also observed that RNAi-mediated downregulation of Atrophin or Pten, in the background of downregulated Expanded (or elevated Yki), gave rise to varying degrees of haltere to wing homeotic transformations at the cellular as well as adult organ levels. Finally, we provide simulated scenarios based on computational modelling that propose key ingredients required for producing wing- or haltere-like morphologies in Drosophila.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Ultrabithorax modifies a regulatory network of genes essential for butterfly eyespot development in a wing sector-specific manner 96%
- Hedgehog produced by the Drosophila wing imaginal disc induces distinct expression responses in three target tissues 96%
- Patterning on the move: the effects of Hh morphogen source movement on signaling dynamics 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Drp1-mediated mitochondrial fission regulates calcium and F-actin dynamics during wound healing 95%
- The Drosophila orthologue of the primary ciliary dyskinesia-associated gene, DNAAF3, is required for axonemal dynein assembly 94%
- WntA expression and wing transcriptomics illuminate the evolution of stripe patterns in skipper butterflies 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Dachsous is a key player in epithelial wound closure by modulating cell shape changes and cytoskeleton dynamics 95%
- Interplay between cortical actin and E-cadherin dynamics regulates cell shape in the Drosophila embryonic epidermis 95%
- Reduction of nucleolar NOC1 accumulates pre-rRNAs and induces Xrp1 affecting growth and resulting in cell competition in Drosophila 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- E3 ubiquitin ligase Deltex facilitates the expansion of Wingless gradient and antagonizes Wingless signaling through a conserved mechanism of transcriptional effector Armadillo/β-catenin degradation 96%
- The NDNF-like factor Nord is a Hedgehog-induced extracellular BMP modulator that regulates Drosophila wing patterning and growth 95%
- Muscle-derived Myoglianin regulates Drosophila melanogaster imaginal disc growth 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A dynamic cell recruitment process drives growth of the Drosophila wing by overscaling the Vestigial expression pattern 95%
- The collagen-binding epitopes of Drosophila SPARC are essential for survival and collagen IV distribution and assembly into basement membranes 95%
- Role of BMP signaling during early development of the annelid Capitella teleta 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.