Talk:Drosophila melanogaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drosophila melanogaster has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Genetic similarities to humans 2 Vision 3 How to get rid of Fruit Flies 4 Mating 5 Tinman gene removal 6 Sequencing year / Contradict tag 7 External Link

[edit] Genetic similarities to humans

Quote: "Genetically speaking, people and fruit flies are very similar. About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues." 50-60% shared genes does not, genetically speaking, make humans and fruit flies very similar! Recommend deletion or re-wording.

I agree, I'm looking for a reference to the genetically similar to humans.., can somebody provide one please?

Here is a genome comparison tool you can play around with: Taxonomy Plot. In the page I linked to, you can see a search for human proteins that have similar corresponding proteins in Drosophila and the mouse. BLAST is a standard algorithm for comparing protein sequence similarity. I set the BLAST sequence algorithm cutoff high (3000) so that only the most conserved proteins are shown. Note that while there are 285 mouse proteins with BLAST scores above 3000, there are only 6 for Drosophila. The one gene that I selected in the plot (the circled diamond) codes for a large cell surface protein that seems to function in cell adhesion and/or cell growth regulation (it is called "FAT" because mutant larvae in Drosophila had over-grown tissues and were "fat"). If you go to the bottom of the page and click on "5240" you can see the protein sequence comparison of the Drosophila and human FAT proteins (32% identity). Note all of the sequence positions where the human and Drosophila sequences differ. Go back to the first page and click on "18905". Notice how the mouse and human FAT proteins are very similar (81% identity). Compared to a mouse, Drosophila is much less genetically similar to humans. If you did a similar comparison of human, Drosophila and a bacterium, you would conclude that Drosophila is much more genetically similar to humans than a bacterium.

I think the question is, is it accurate and important to say that fruit flies are genetically similar to humans? I mean, if we were to construct a list of "animals that are genetically similar to humans", where would fruit flies rank? Would it be safe to assume that they're way down on the list, next to every mammal in the world and a good number of other animals? Would it be better to say that the genetic similarities that fruit flies do have with humans makes them suitable (in some ways) for disease studies? FireWorks 21:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It is important to explain why it has been useful to study flies. In evolutionary terms, about three quarters of a billion years ago, all of the types of genes required to produce a complex multicellular organism started to become available in a common ancestor to flies and humans. Flies and humans are both examples of the many types of complex multicellular organisms that can be produced. Many of the key developmental processes that are used to produce any complex multicellular organism can be understood by study of the genes that control development of flies. The body segmentation control genes provide a good example. In contrast, study of the genes of bacterial cells will tell you very little about how to make a multicellular organism. It is true that study of fly genes has been useful for understanding some human diseases, but the study of mammals such as mice is more useful for the study of many human diseases and some developmental processes. For example, you could learn very little about the basic genetic controls for human sex determination by studying flies, but mice use a very similar system. Rather than just throw out phrases like "closely related" and "distantly related" you have to give some specific examples. --JWSchmidt 22:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm editing the same article on Finnish Wikipedia and I was able to gather some references for the statements, but the figures I got were pretty different: The disease-gene homology between man and fly (according to the Reiter et al article cited here also), is 77% and not 75% as stated in Drosophila melanogaster. The overall similarity of man and fly, which in here is said to be 44% I changed to about 20% in the Finnish version and referenced it (very poorly) using Venter's human sequence paper, which states the number of human-fly orthologous genes they found. Then I just divided the number with the total gene number to get the presentage. The 50% protein homology to mammals I couldn't source. Any suggestions on that (or disagreement on my changed numbers)? I might change the numbers here also at some point and reference them, if there are no objections. I'm only a bit unsure, if these kind of exact numbers or presentages are needed at all. --Albval 10:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vision

I find it strange that so much article space is devoted to Drosophila vision. One could justify writing in-depth accounts of fly olfaction, reproduction, etc., but there is little mention of them. I would guess that the author of the vision passage chose to write so much about that topic because it was his area of expertise, and he felt it was important. I'm not recommending that the passage on vision be deleted, I just want to point out that it is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article. Deadcorpse 21:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above. In fact, it seems the vision section should be an article in it's own right. What I find glaringly absent is any history of Drosophila as a genetic model system. No mention of Thomas Hunt Morgan who identified the first mutant:

In a pedigree culture of Drosophila which had been running for nearly one year through a considerable number of generations, a male apperared with white eyes. The normal flies have brilliant red eyes. Thomas H. Morgan, 1910

And lets not forget the paper by Morgans students Alfred Sturtevant and Calvin Bridges The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity based on their work with flies. Also worthy of mention is all the pioneering work from Edward Lewis in the genetic mechanisms of development, again using the power of drosophila genetics. This was recognised in 1995 when Ed Lewis, Christiane Nusslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus were awarded the Nobel Prize. All these events should be mentioned since they had a huge impact on how biologists attack a scientific problem.David D. 20:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I suspect part of the reason the author feels vision is significant may be that Drosophila eyes in particular make a good model for development. Sorry I don't have a citation, but I remember more than once both during undergraduate genetics and during genetics seminars hearing about developmental biologists using eye deformities as a convenient way of visualising developmental defects. I guess because they're so big, and so precisely patterened. Still, the amount of detail there now is likely a bit more than necessary. Adrian J. Hunter 09:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Each microvillus is 1 mm to 1.5 mm in length and 50 nm in diameter."

Shouldn't that length be 1 to 1.5 micrometre, instead of millimetre? It conforms to the Microvillus article. Amorim Parga 08:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to get rid of Fruit Flies

Anyone know how to get rid of these buggers when they are hanging around your kitchen? 68.17.148.234 01:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Dessert wine. Leave a glass of it on your kitchen counter. They will drink, then drown.
2. This is a tested technique recommended by a fruit fly research lab. Put a small amount of banana, or other sweet food, into a glass. Make a paper cone and insert it snugly on the top of the glass. The hole of the paper cone needs to be about 1.5 times the size of a fruit fly, slightly bigger than a pencil's point. Make sure your cone is taped to the glass so they can't crawl up the inside of the glass and out. The flies can get themselves downwards through the hole, but they cant figure out how to fly up through the hole. Within a day, you will have them all captured. 24.84.52.255 16:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

"It is distinct from the kinds of fruit flies that are agricultural pests."

I though this was worth putting in the lead. It might be my own bias showing through, but in Australia we're paranoid about fruit flies breaching quarantine: best to make this point early, lest people get the wrong idea about the local genetics lab! Adrian J. Hunter 10:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Mating

There are two sections that discuss mating rituals, one in the Life Cycle section and one in its own section, which has been tagged for lack of references. I suggest that the two be merged in the Life Cycle section, or the latter deleted due to lack of verification. --Digitalgadget 05:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tinman gene removal

I believe this example is too specific. (it was removed without explanation and replaced). Perhaps using it as an example rather than the way it is right now where it has no context. I'll do this when I have a chance, unless there are strenuous objections. Flyguy649 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sequencing year / Contradict tag

Why does the article state that the Drosophila genome was sequenced in 1998 although the referenced sequence paper came out two years later, in 2000? Is that a mistake or am I just missing something? --Albval 10:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue is the reason why I tagged the article with {{contradict}}. --B.d.mills 06:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked on PubMed, and the first publication of the Drosophila genome was in 2000, although it has since of course been improved upon. I'll change the article now. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Would this article, Maintenance of a Drosophila Laboratory: General Procedures, be useful to add to the external links section? Drosophila is not my area of interest, thought it best to ask. Zzorse 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. So although the info in this link is useful to Drosophilists, people do not need to find that at Wikipedia. In fact, most Drosophila labs would probably have that protocol (or more likely, "Laboratory Culture of Drosophila," which it is adapted from; our lab does). Flyguy649^talk_contribs 00:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)