Light dependent mating inhibition in the white-eye mutant ofDrosophila pseudoobscura

Abstract

Summary. White-eye Drosophilapseudoobscura males display a deficiency in their mating ability in the light, although they are able to mate readily in the dark. The present data suggest that the mating deficit is due to a neurobehavioral disruption produced by faulty visual input.Drosophila species exhibit different degrees of light dependency in their mating behavior. Grossfield 1 contends that Drosophila species which mate equally well in the light or in the dark are able to adjust their behavior, especially their mating behavior, in order to adapt to varying environments. Both Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila pseudoobscura are widely distributed species with such light independent mating behavior. Mating behavior in the light is disrupted in pigmentdeficient D. melanogaster mutants. Connolly et al. 2 found that white-eye D. melanogaster males exhibit a significant decrease in the mean bout length of wing vibration during courtship under lighted conditions. Previous investigations showed that eye pigment-deficient mutant flies in D. melanogaster display decreased abilities in pattern contrast for both movement and form perception 3. This suggests that the impaired contrast perception of the white-eye males may prevent these males from establishing contact with the females. Indeed, Connolly et al) hypothesized that the female receives less stimulation from the white-eye male so that longer courtship time is needed for copulation to occnr.We found that white-eye D.pseudoobscura males also show a decrease in their mating ability under lighted conditions. 3-and 4-day-old virgin white-eye Arrowhead double mutants (or, pr; homozygous on the 3rd chromosome for both orange and prune) were allowed to mate under the following conditions.

Visual Input Regulates Circuit Configuration in Courtship Conditioning of Drosophila melanogaster

“…It has been known for many years that vision is able to modulate basal courtship levels and courtship success (Geer and Green 1962;Grossfield 1966;Connolly et al 1969;DeJianne et al 1981;Tompkins et al 1982;Markow 1987;Chatterjee and Singh 1988;Stocker and Gendre 1989;Joiner and Griffith 1997). Vision appears to act as a positive stimulus to courtship.…”

CaM Kinase II and Visual Input Modulate Memory Formation in the Neuronal Circuit Controlling Courtship Conditioning

“…A number of investigators have noted that light and visual competence of the male have significant effects on mating success in flies as measured by sperm in the female reproductive tract or the number of females producing progeny (Geer and Green, 1962;Grossfield, 1966;Connolly et al, 1969;DeJianne et al, 1981;Tompkins et al, 1982;Markow, 1987;Chatterjee and Singh, 1988;Stocker and Gendre, 1989). To determine whether we could modulate baseline courtship behavior by changing visual input and whether modulation of basal courtship was affected by inhibition of CaM kinase, we assessed the amount of courtship performed by males with varying eye pigment levels and varying amounts of CaM kinase activity under normal white light and dim red light.…”

Genetics of the nervous system inDrosophila

“…It is interesting that mutant, ebony males of D. melanogaster (e.g. Rendel, 1951) or white-eyed males of D. pseudoobscura (Dejianne, Pruzan-Hotchkiss & Grossfield, 1981) mate significantly better in the dark than under normal conditions. Instead of these results being a mere curiosity, they may mean that the nervous systems in these visually defective but non-blind mutants have aberrant, not just weak, visual input when the ERG has defective transients or the eye lacks screening pigments, and that the effects on optomotor responses of courting males are more severe than those of no input.…”