Taxonomic identification of Drosophila nasuta subgroup strains by glue protein analysis

Abstract

Protein fractions of salivary glands were analyzed from 30 wildtype strains of eight species belonging to the Drosophila nasuta subgroup by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The electrophoretic patterns indicated several prominent bands which could be shown to represent the major glue protein fractions. The glue protein fractions are species-specific as well as wildtype strain-specific. Wildtype strain specificities are characterized by variations of the species-specific patterns. The patterns of the different wildtypes, species, and hybrids were used for taxonomic identification within the nasuta subgroup, in which the females are morphologically indistinguishable and the males differ only by the markings of their frons. The hybrids provide evidence for gonosomal as well as autosomal linkage of individual genes coding for the major glue protein fractions.

Phylogeny and Evolution of the Drosophila nasuta Subgroup Based on Mitochondrial ND4 and ND4L Gene Sequences

“…For instance, the four subspecies in the D. sulfurigaster species complex, D. s. sulfurigaster, D. s. albostrigata, D. s. neonasuta, and D. s. bilimbata, have the same orbit pattern. However, when geographic populations were investigated, great genetic divergence was found between subspecies (Ramesh and Kalisch, 1989;Tamura et al, 1991;Shao et al, 1997). In our study, the divergence among the four subspecies in D. sulfurigaster is also comparable to the divergence 564 among other full species.…”

“…The nasuta subgroup species exhibit some features that make them evolutionarily interesting, such as various levels of reproductive isolation, extensive polymorphism of metaphase and polytene chromosomes, and extreme morphological similarity between females but strikingly different silver marking patterns in the male frons of different taxa (Nirmala and Krishnamurthy, 1972;Wilson et al, 1969;Kitagawa et al, 1982;Kitagawa, 1991). Despite extensive studies of morphometry (Wilson et al, 1969;Kitagawa et al, 1982;Kitagawa, 1991), reproductive isolation (Wilson et al, 1969;Kitagawa et al, 1982;Shao et al, 1997), chromosomes (Wilson et al, 1969;Kitagawa et al, 1982;Wakahama et al, 1983;Suzuki et al, 1990), proteins (Ramesh and Kalisch, 1989), and DNA (Chang et al, 1989;Tamura, 1992; our unpublished data of ribosomal internal transcribed spacer, ITS), the phylogenetic relationship among taxa in the subgroup is unclear. Even the taxonomy of the subgroup has changed several times.…”

Comparative analysis of glue proteins in theDrosophila nasuta subgroup

“…The X-chromosomal linkage of the major fractions in domains I! and III has already been shown Kalisch, 1988, 1989 (Ramesh and Kalisch, 1989).…”

“…1). Nevertheless, the "homologous" electrophoretic mobilities of the X-chromosomal linked major glue fractions in domains II and III vary in the different members of the D. n a s u t a subgroup (Ramesh and Kalisch, 1989). By this, an overlapping of both domains results in Fig.…”

“…and cytogenetic and some molecular genetic data have been collected to understand the relationships as well as the biochemical and genetic differences within this subgroup. Genetic investigations within the D. nasuta subgroup have been hampered, so far, by the relatively few mutations available and by the fact that all the females of the subgroup are morphologically indistinguishable from each other and that the males differ only in the silvery markings of their frons (literature cited in Ramesh and Kalisch, 1989).…”