The adult eye consists of an array of approximately 800 hexagonal ommatidia, or facets. There is also an array of sensory hairs projecting from the surface.

Each ommatidium contains eight photoreceptor cells, each associated with a rhabomere. A rhabomere is a rod-like element containing photoreceptor elements (see The Drosophila Adult Ommatidium: Illustration and explanation with Quicktime animation). Photoreceptor cells one through six of each ommatidium are placed radially around cells 7 and 8, forming an irregular trapezoid. Rhadomeres of cells seven and eight occupy a central position, cell seven above cell eight. Each ommatidium is surrounded by two primary pigment cells and these are surrounded by six secondary pigment cells, shared by adjacent ommatidia. Thus each ommatidium contains a total of 22 cells, making the total number of cells in each eye over 16,000 (Ready, 1976). From each mature cluster a bundle of eight axons runs posteriorly into a pre-optic stalk. For information on inductive relationships between the projecting axons and the innervated medula of the brain optic lobe see the brain site.

In the differentiation of the eye, R8 is the first cell population to have its fate determined. Subsequently and successively comes the differentiation of three cell pairs: R2/5, R3/4 and R1/6. Following this is the differentiation of R7 and the surrounding cone cells.

The eye is derived from the eye-antennal disc. The disc itself arises from approximately 20 cells of the optic primordium in the embryonic blastoderm. The disc is formed by invagination at stage 12, to produce a flattened sac of epithelium. By the third instar larva the disc contains about 2000 cells. During the middle of the third instar phase, a dorsal ventral furrow forms, advancing from posterior to anterior. The furrow, whose progression requires hedgehog function, is the site where commitment to photoreceptor fate is initiated. hh activates the expression of decapentaplegic and the proneural gene atonal in the furrow. ato expression is refined to the future R8 photoreceptor and is required for the development of this cell. The area anterior to the furrow is rich in synchronously dividing cells, but lacks a pattern. The furrow itself is caused by a shortening of cells at its center. The area posterior to the furrow shows preclusters of cells, each with a recognizable core of five cells, corresponding to cells 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the photoreceptor. These photoreceptors and accessory cells are recruited to each ommatidial cluster (composed of developing photoreceptors) by waves of expression of the ligand spitz (spi) for the EGF receptor. A diagram is presented describing the progression of the morphogenetic furrow across the eye disc.

In addition to the dorso-ventral furrow described above, there is an axis of dorso-ventral symmetry. Associated with the advancing boundary of cluster formation, the area ahead of this boundary is indented along the anterior posterior axis. This groove can be seen in the early third instar disc. It is this anterior-posterior groove that structures the DV symmetry of the eye (Ready, 1976). A diagram is presented describing the specification of the eye disc primordium and the establishment of dorsal/ventral asymmetry.

Cells in the Drosophila eye are determined by inductive signalling. A model of eye development has been built that explains how simple intercellular signals could specify the diverse cell types that constitute the ommatidium. This model arises from the observation that the Drosophila homologue of the EGF receptor (EGF-R) is used reiteratively to trigger the differentiation of each of the cell types -- successive rounds of EGF-R activation recruit first the photoreceptors, then cone and finally pigment cells. It seems that a cell's identity is not determined by the specific signal that induces it, but is instead a function of the state of the cell that receives the signal. EGF-R signalling is activated by the ligand, Spitz, and inhibited by the secreted protein, Argos. Spitz is initially produced by the central cells in the ommatidium and diffuses over a small distance. Argos has a longer range, allowing it to block more distal cells from being activated by low levels of Spitz; This interplay between a short-range activator and a long-range inhibitor is termed 'remote inhibition'. Since inductive signalling is common in many organisms and its components have been conserved, it is possible that the logic of signalling may also be conserved (Freeman, 1997).

The Drosophila compound eye is specified by the concerted action of seven nuclear factors: Twin of eyeless (Toy), Eyeless (Ey), Eyes absent (Eya), Sine oculis (So), Dachshund (Dac), Eye gone (Eyg), and Optix (Opt). These factors have been called 'master control' proteins because loss-of-function mutants lack eyes and ectopic expression can direct ectopic eye development. However, inactivation of these genes does not cause the presumptive eye to change identity. Surprisingly, several of these eye specification genes are not coexpressed in the same embryonic cells -- or even in the presumptive eye. Surprisingly, the EGF Receptor and Notch signaling pathways have homeotic functions that are genetically upstream of the eye specification genes; specification occurs much later than previously thought -- not during embryonic development but in the second larval stage (Kumar, 2001).

The Egfr and Notch pathways function in the specification or determination of the eye. An ey-GAL4 driver was used to express target proteins; this element drives expression first in the eye and antenna anlagen in the embryo (by stage 11) and then in regions ahead of the furrow in just the eye imaginal disc. Egfr function was removed in this domain by expressing a dominant negative form of the receptor. Both the eye and antenna were deleted from eclosed adults indicating that both structures require Egfr signaling for their specification, determination, or survival. Under these conditions, the larval discs do not form, making analysis of later developmental phenotypes impossible. The same phenotype was obtained with dominant negative Ras indicating that this activity is Ras dependent. Wild-type and activated forms of several components of the Ras pathway were expressed in the eye anlagen using the same driver and it was found that hyperactivation of many elements leads to the homeotic transformation of the eye into a morphologically complete antenna. Homeotic transformation of the eye to antenna can also be induced by the Egfr ligand Spitz but not by two other known activators. The membrane bound version of Spitz does not induce homeotic transformations, suggesting a requirement for paracrine signaling. Wild-type and constitutively active forms of the Egfr and two other Drosophila RTKs (Breathless [Btl] and Heartless [Htl]) were expressed but only Egfr is able to induce the transformation. Expression of the constitutively active version of Egfr gives a significantly stronger phenotype than the wild-type version of Egfr, suggesting that the level of Egfr signaling is important for maintaining the balance between eye and antennal identities. The downstream elements of the pathway that can induce this transformation include Ras, Raf, and PntP1, while neither MEK, MAPK, nor PntP2 induced this effect in this assay. Aop, Tramtrack (Ttk), and BarH1/H2, each of which mediates negative feedback inhibition of Egfr signaling, delete the eye. The failure of Mek, Mapk, and PntP2 to induce this transformation reflects the existence of actual branch points in the pathway. However, it is also possible that the quantitative levels of expression of these three elements are not limiting for this signal at this time and place; indeed, their phosphorylation states may be more relevant (Kumar, 2001).

Notch and Egfr have been shown to often antagonize each other during cell fate decisions in the fly eye. Notch function was removed with a dominant negative form and results similar to the effects of Egfr signal hyperactivation were obtained. Consistent with this, when an activated form of Notch was expressed, the size of the eye was reduced and there were severe dysmorphies. Expression of dominant negative transgenes of the ligands Delta (Dl) or Serrate (Ser) also results in the eye to antenna transformation. Elevated expression levels of both Su(H) and many of the proteins of the E(spl) complex (m4, m7, m8, m8^DN, malpha, mß, mgamma, and mdelta) were also expressed but no effect on either eye or antenna disc development was observed. However, homeotic eye to antenna transformations occurred when Mastermind (Mam) was expressed using a dominant negative construct. Mam is a member of the neurogenic gene group that encodes a nuclear protein of unknown function. These results suggest a Su(H) and E(spl)C independent pathway for eye and antenna disc development that involves Mam (Kumar, 2001).

The Wg and Hh pathways have been shown to regulate the size and shape of the eye. Overexpression of a transgene containing the full-length wild-type Cubitus interruptus (Ci) protein, a downstream component of Hh signaling, can mediate eye to antenna homeotic transformations. It is uncertain if these data show a positive or negative Hedgehog signal; Ci may be cleaved into the repressor form, thereby mimicking the effects on eye development seen in loss of Hedgehog signaling. Overexpression of Wg results in the near complete deletion of the eye. Downstream of Wg lie two transcription factors: Sloppy Paired 1 and 2 (Slp1, Slp2). The effect of Wg on eye specification appears to be mediated through Slp2 but not Slp1. Taken together, these observations suggest that along with Egfr and Notch, both Wg and Hh signaling function during eye and antenna disc specification (Kumar, 2001).

Do Egfr and Notch Act upstream of the eye specification genes? A molecular epistasy study was undertaken, examining the expression of some of the eye and antennal specification genes in the transforming conditions during the third larval stage (before cell types differentiate). In eye specification gene mutants (such as ey), ommatidial development is blocked, but the eye disc remains in a reduced form. Conditions that produce eye to antenna transformations, whether through hyperactivation of Egfr or downregulation of Notch signaling, show a complete replacement of the eye disc with an antenna disc. Distal-less (Dll) and Spalt-Major are normally expressed within subdomains of the antenna disc and are required for antenna development. Dll and SalM are expressed in the correct locations in the transformed antenna disc suggesting that both endogenous and transformed antenna are also both morphologically and molecularly equivalent (Kumar, 2001).

The transcription of five of the seven known eye specification genes (toy, ey, eya, so, and eyg) was examined. In transforming conditions, transcription levels of all five of the seven genes are below the levels of detection. This is consistent with both Egfr and Notch signaling acting genetically upstream to both the eye and antennal specification genes. The downregulation of ey suggests that the ey-GAL4 driver may also be downregulated via an autoregulatory mechanism. That the transformation occurs despite this may reflect a phenocritical period for the eye-antenna transformation; once the transformation has occurred the system is refractory to the loss of Egfr signaling (Kumar, 2001).

When and where are the eye and antenna specified? The seven known eye specification genes are thought to act in a genetic and biochemical complex; by pairwise tests, their products have been shown to either directly regulate each other's transcription or to interact at the protein level, or both. From the few published reports of the early expression patterns of eye specification genes and from fate mapping experiments, it has been suggested that eye versus antennal fate specification occurs during the latter stages of embryogenesis. These concepts lead to a straightforward hypothesis: at some point in the developing embryo, the seven eye specification genes' products are coexpressed in the presumptive eye and act to specify its fate. A similar event (with the action of different genes) also specifies the antenna (Kumar, 2001).

If this hypothesis is true, then three predictions should hold: (1) At some time during embryonic development, there should be two domains of expression of the eye specification genes that correspond to the future eyes, and anterior to these, should be two domains of antenna specification gene expression marking and acting to direct antenna fate. These gene products should be specific to the future structures they mark, and should not be found elsewhere. (2) The eye specification genes should be coexpressed in the same cells. This is known to be true of toy, ey, and eyg. (3) The phenocritical period for the eye to antenna transforming function of Egfr and Notch pathway signaling should be coincident with, or earlier than, the time at which the eye and antenna specification genes are first specifically coexpressed. All three of these predictions were tested (Kumar, 2001).

To test the first prediction above, embryos were collected (at 1 hr intervals from 1 to 16 hr after egg deposition, AED) and analyzed for expression of the canonical eye specification gene ey (Pax6) and the antenna specification protein Dll. Dll is first detected at 7 hr in the leg imaginal disc primordia and in several segments in the embryonic head. ey transcription in the eye imaginal disc is first detectable at 11 hr while Dll is seen in an adjacent region as well as other sites. In latter stages of embryogenesis, the eye imaginal disc invaginates and assumes a more dorsal-medial position within the embryonic head, just above the developing embryonic brain. Regions of ey expression are observed that correspond to this. Furthermore, this ey expression corresponds to domains of Escargot expression (Esg), a general imaginal disc marker. However, Dll expression is more anterior and it is not clear if these sites correspond to the presumptive antennae. It thus appears that ey is expressed in both the presumptive eye and antenna by 13 hr and remains there through the last embryonic time point observed, and that Dll is not expressed in the future antenna at any embryonic time. It is also quite clear that ey is expressed in many sites in the embryo that will never form eye (such as the segmental grooves). In short, the position of the presumptive eye or antenna during embryonic development cannot be distinguish based on the specific expression of their respective 'master control' genes—neither ey nor Dll expression are sufficient to specify the eye or the antenna; therefore, prediction 1 (above) does not hold true (Kumar, 2001).

Are the eye specification genes coexpressed during embryonic development? The expression pattern of Eya and Dac proteins and so transcription were examined at 1 hr time points (from 1 to 16 hr AED) and it was found that none of these three eye specification genes is coexpressed with ey within the presumptive eye. The fact that these genes are not expressed within the same cells during embryonic development precludes any possibility that their products act in a multiprotein complex critical for eye specification in the embryo and, thus, prediction 2 (above) does not hold true either. However, eye specification might occur later in development (Kumar, 2001).

The eye specification genes are first coexpressed in the second larval stage. In second stage larva, the eye specification gene products are completely segregated into the eye portion of eye-antennal disc, but the antennal marker Dll is evenly expressed in both the eye and antennal segments. Interestingly, the expression patterns of the eye specification genes are still not completely overlapping. For instance, toy appears to be expressed throughout the entire eye field while both eya and dac are expressed just in the posterior portions of the eye disc. In the third larval stage, the eye specification genes remain within the eye portion and Dll is now segregated to just the antennal segments (Kumar, 2001).

The phenocritical period for eye to antenna transformation is in the second larval stage. Use was made of the cold sensitivity of the GAL4 protein to determine the phenocritical period. GAL4 is a yeast protein and is fully functional at 25°C but is less active at 18°C. Flies of the ey-GAL4/UAS-Ser^DN genotype were raised at 18°C, shifted to 25°C for a consecutive series of 24 hr periods, and then returned to 18°C until late third instar imaginal discs could be examined. The use of the dominant negative Ser construct in this experiment effectively eliminates Notch pathway function in the developing eye. Indistinguishable transformations were observed in other experiments with constructs that either hyperactivate Egfr pathway signaling or inactivate Notch. The developing eye-antennal complex is completely normal if kept continuously at 18°C (negative control) while constant exposure to 25°C temperatures resulted in the eye to antenna transformation (positive control). These controls confirm that the cold sensitivity of GAL4 protein activity is sufficient to control the transformation (Kumar, 2001).

Temperature shifts during the embryonic and first larval stages failed to induce any effects. The eye-antennal discs are completely normal. This is consistent with the expression data suggesting that the eye is not specified during embryogenesis. A temperature shift during the first half of the second larval stage results in a reduced eye field, but no transformation to antenna. Interestingly, this phenotype is similar to that seen in ey mutant homozygotes. The eye to antenna transformation is fully induced in all cases when the temperature shift occurs during the latter half of the second larval stage. The transformed antenna expresses Dll in an identical pattern as seen in the endogenous antenna. Subsequent temperature shifts during the earliest phase of the third larval stage do not result in a complete transformation. Interestingly, loss of Notch during the next day of the third larval stage results in defects in the regulation of the morphogenetic furrow. These results clearly indicate that the phenocritical period is chiefly within the latter half of the second larval stage. This phenocritical period does not predate the expression of any of the eye specification genes, but it is coincident with their first coexpression and, thus, prediction 3 (above) holds true (Kumar, 2001).

Is the presumptive eye actually transformed into a second antenna under these conditions, or does the eye degenerate and get replaced by regrowth from elsewhere? The former interpretation (transformation) is favored because in hundreds of transformed L2 disc complexes dissected, a degenerating eye disc, or a small (presumably regrowing) antennal disc was never observed. In all cases, the transformed antenna is equal in size to the normal one. Indeed, both are somewhat larger than normal. This might suggest that a fixed number of cells that normally distribute preferentially to the eye are now equally allocated to both antennae (Kumar, 2001).

The notch pathway signals differentially in the eye and antenna primordia in the second larval stage. Loss of Notch activity during the second larval stage results in the transformation of the eye into an antenna. Thus, it is predicted that Notch signaling should be elevated in the presumptive eye versus the antenna at the critical time. Cells that are actively receiving a Notch signal upregulate Notch protein expression. Thus elevated Notch antigen expression can be used as a reporter of elevated Notch signaling. Notch and ey expression were examined in imaginal discs from first, second, and third stage larvae. Both Notch and ey are expressed throughout the entire eye-antennal disc anlagen during the first larval stage. By the second larval stage, Notch is differentially upregulated within the presumptive eye. Interestingly, Notch appears especially active along the eye margins and midline, where it is thought to regulate retinal polarity. In contrast, ey appears to be exclusively within the eye field. In the third larval stage, Notch expression is upregulated in the morphogenetic furrow, where it acts to control ommatidial spacing while ey remains upregulated ahead of the furrow (Kumar, 2001).

Therefore, Egfr signaling promotes an antennal fate while Notch signaling promotes an eye fate. This role for Notch is consistent with the observation that removal of Notch signaling can partially inhibit compound eye development. Furthermore, several of the eye and antennal specification genes (ey, toy, eya, so, eyg, salM, and Dll) are downstream of the Egfr and Notch inputs. Wg and Hh pathway signaling affect this specification. The eye specification genes form a regulatory network and the direct control of any one of these genes may affect the others. Thus, which (if any) of the known eye specification genes is a direct target of Notch or Egfr signals may require direct biochemical assays (Kumar, 2001).

While activating Egfr or blocking Notch signals transforms the eye cleanly into an antenna, the reciprocal transformation is not complete, suggesting that there may be additional positive regulators of eye fate. The reciprocal transformation experiment could not be conducted (i.e., antenna to eye switch via hyperactivation of Notch or downregulation of Egfr signaling solely within the antennal anlagen). Unlike the ey-GAL4 driver, there is not an equivalent known driver that is expressed solely with the antennal anlagen. All known antennal-determining genes are also expressed in other imaginal discs. For instance, the Dll-GAL4 driver is expressed in several places within the embryonic head and leg imaginal disc. Expression of Egfr or Notch constructs with this driver results only in embryonic lethality. It may be that the antenna can be changed to an eye via alterations of Egfr or Notch signaling provided that the appropriate tools for their missexpression are available (Kumar, 2001).

Why do homozygous mutants for eye specification genes not transform the eye into an antenna? While it may be that some alleles are not nulls (e.g., ey¹), a more interesting possibility is that there may be functional redundancy in some cases -- particularly that of ey and toy. Thus, only when both genetic functions are eliminated will a true null condition exist. Just such a situation confused the phenotypic analysis of two other twin homeodomain proteins, engrailed and invected. Unfortunately, mutations of the toy gene do not yet exist (Kumar, 2001).

How do the eye specification genes function? Published genetic epistasy and biochemical interaction data suggest that the seven known eye specification genes' products interact at the transcriptional and protein levels to direct cells toward eye fate. This requires that they are expressed in the same cells. Furthermore, it has been suggested that many, if not all, of these genes are 'master regulators' of eye fate -- that is, they are both necessary and sufficient for eye specification. Many very compelling experiments have been described showing the induction of ectopic eyes through the ectopic expression of these genes alone or in synergistic combinations. It is suggested that these genes come under separate regulation by different patterning signals in early development and that there are overlapping domains. Only when all of the domains coincide (during the second larval stage) do eye specification genes specify the eye. This seems to be the simplest explanation since the eye specification genes form a very tight genetic, biochemical, and transcriptional regulatory network suggesting that they are together required for eye specification. It may be that the final coexpression of the eye specification genes' products (and the exclusion of the antennal specification factors) is the last step required to allow the morphogenetic furrow to initiate in response to the next local expression of hh and for the final specification of retinal cell types and pattern (Kumar, 2001).

In Drosophila, the eye and antenna originate from a single epithelium termed the eye-antennal imaginal disc. Illumination of the mechanisms that subdivide this epithelium into eye and antenna would enhance understanding of the mechanisms that restrict stem cell fate. This study shows that Dorsal interacting protein 3 (Dip3), a transcription factor required for eye development, alters fate determination when misexpressed in the early eye-antennal disc, and this observation has been taken advantage of to gain new insight into the mechanisms controlling the eye-antennal switch. Dip3 misexpression yields extra antennae by two distinct mechanisms: the splitting of the antennal field into multiple antennal domains (antennal duplication), and the transformation of the eye disc to an antennal fate. Antennal duplication requires Dip3-induced under proliferation of the eye disc and concurrent over proliferation of the antennal disc. While previous studies have shown that overgrowth of the antennal disc can lead to antennal duplication, these results show that overgrowth is not sufficient for antennal duplication, which may require additional signals perhaps from the eye disc. Eye-to-antennal transformation appears to result from the combination of antennal selector gene activation, eye determination gene repression, and cell cycle perturbation in the eye disc. Both antennal duplication and eye-to-antennal transformation are suppressed by the expression of genes that drive the cell cycle providing support for tight coupling of cell fate determination and cell cycle control. The finding that this transformation occurs only in the eye disc, and not in other imaginal discs, suggests a close developmental and therefore evolutionary relationship between eyes and antennae (Duong, 2008).

Dip3 is able to bind DNA in a sequence specific manner and activate transcription directly. Dip3 possesses an N-terminal MADF domain and a C-terminal BESS domain, an architecture that is conserved in at least 14 Drosophila proteins, including Adf-1 and Stonewall. The MADF domain directs sequence specific DNA binding to a site consisting of multiple trinucleotide repeats, while the BESS domain directs a variety of protein-protein interactions, including interactions with itself, with Dorsal, and with a TBP-associated factor (Bhaskar, 2002).

Antagonism between the N and EGFR signaling pathways influences developmental fate in the eye-antennal disc leading to a loss of eye tissue and the appearance of extra antennae. Although this phenotype was originally suspected to represent eye-to-antennal transformation, subsequent analysis suggests that it most likely represents antennal duplication. Specifically, the absence of the N signal leads to a failure in eye disc proliferation resulting in compensatory over-proliferation of the antennal disc and its subdivision into multiple antennae. Consistent with the idea that the extra antennae result from under-proliferation of the eye field, it was found that the phenotype was largely suppressed by over-expression of CycE to drive the cell cycle (Duong, 2008).

In this study, it was found that inhibition of eye disc growth leads to antennal duplication. But in addition, it was shown that the same treatment that leads to antennal duplication can also direct the transformation of eyes to antennae. These two phenotypes are anatomically distinct. This anatomical distinction is evident in adults: antennae resulting from antennal duplication are found anterior to the antennal foramen, while the antennae resulting from eye-to-antenna transformation are found posterior to the antennal foramen. It is also apparent in larval eye-antennal imaginal discs: antennal duplication discs exhibit multiple circular dac expression domains within a single sac of epithelium (the antennal disc), while eye-to-antennal transformation discs exhibit two or more circular dac expression domains spread over both the eye and antennal discs. The two types of discs display distinct molecular signatures as well: the antennal duplication discs exhibit duplicated Dll expression domains, while the eye discs undergoing transformation to antennae lack Dll expression (Duong, 2008).

Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that Dip3 can direct eye-to-antennal transformation is provided by the observation of eyes that are only partially transformed to antennae since is very difficult to reconcile these partial transformations with the idea of antennal duplication. In some cases, proximal antennal segments tipped with eye tissue are observed. In accord with this phenotype, some third instar larval eye discs display a central domain of Elav-positive differentiating photoreceptors surrounded by a circular dac domain (Duong, 2008).

These arguments support the idea that antennal duplication and eye-to-antennal transformation are mechanistically distinct phenomena, and the remainder of the discussion assumes this to be the case. However, the possibility that these two phenotypes are two manifestations of a single mechanism cannot be excluded. For example, the discs exhibiting duplicated Dll domains may represent complete transformations, while the discs lacking duplicated Dll domains, but containing Elav may represent partial transformations (Duong, 2008).

The data show that discs undergoing antennal duplication as a result of Dip3 expression are comprised of a severely diminished eye region and an enlarged antennal region. As shown by BrdU labeling experiments, these antennal duplication discs most likely result from suppression by Dip3 of cell proliferation in the eye field leading to overproliferation of the antennal disc. This conclusion is supported by the ability of factors that drive cell proliferation (e.g., Cyclin E) to alleviate the Dip3 misexpression defect (Duong, 2008).

Many experimental manipulations that reduce the size of the eye disc (e.g., surgical excision, induction of cell death, or suppression of cell proliferation) lead to enlargement and duplication of the antennal primordium. How might reduction of the eye field lead to antennal field over-growth? One possibility is that the eye field produces a growth inhibitory signal. Alternatively, the eye field and the antennal field may compete with each other for limited nutrients or growth factors. In support of this latter possibility, recent studies of the role of dMyc in wing development have demonstrated growth competition between groups of imaginal disc cells (Duong, 2008).

While the results imply that antennal disc overgrowth is required for antennal duplication, overgrowth is thought not to be sufficient for duplication. This conclusion derives from experiments in which an antennal disc specific driver is used to direct over-expression of CycE or N^act. This resulted in antennal overgrowth without concurrent reduction in the eye disc. In this case, antennal duplication was not observed. Thus, in addition to antennal overgrowth, antennal duplication also appears to require reduction or elimination of the eye disc. Regulatory signals from the eye disc may act to prevent antennal duplication (Duong, 2008).

The eye and antenna discs differ in several respects: (1) Specific expression of the organ-specification genes. The eye disc expresses the retinal determination gene network (RDGN) genes, including eyeless (ey), twin of eyeless (toy), eyes absent (eya), sine oculis (so), and dachshund (dac), while the antennal disc expresses Dll and hth. hth is also expressed in the eye disc but in a distinct pattern from that seen in the antennal disc. In the second instar eye disc, hth is expressed throughout the eye disc, and collaborates with ey and teashirt (tsh) to promote cell proliferation. The hth expression domain later retracts to only the anterior-most region of the eye disc. This pattern is different from the circular expression pattern observed in the antennal disc. (2) In the antennal disc, dpp is expressed in a dorsal anterior wedge and wg is expressed in a ventral anterior wedge. The intersection of Dpp and Wg signaling is required to specify the proximodistal axis in the leg and antenna. In the early eye disc, Wg and Dpp signaling may overlap. But as the disc grows in size, the wg and dpp expression domain are separated, so that there is probably no intersection between high levels of Wg and Dpp signaling. (3) Whereas the partial overlap of Dll and hth expression domains in the antennal disc is important for proximodistal axis specification, there is no Dll expression in the eye disc. Dll expression in the center of the antennal and leg discs is induced by the combination of high levels of Dpp and Wg signaling. Because there is no overlap of Dpp and Wg signaling in the eye disc, Dll is not induced (Duong, 2008).

Therefore, efficient transformation of the eye disc into an antennal disc requires at least three things: (1) repression of the eye fate pathway; (2) activation the antennal fate pathway; and (3) the intersection of Dpp and Wg signaling, mimicking the situation in the antenna and leg disc that induces proximodistal axis formation. Any one of these three conditions by itself is not sufficient. (1) Loss of the RDGN genes leads only to the loss of the eye. However, if apoptosis is blocked, or cell proliferation is induced, in the ey² mutant (ey>p35 or ey>N^act in ey²), then Dll can be induced in the eye disc and extra antenna are formed. The induction of Dll is not ubiquitous in the eye disc, suggesting that the loss of ey does not autonomously lead to the expression of Dll and the transformation to the antennal fate. (2) Simply expressing the antennal determining genes Dll or hth in the eye disc does not change the eye fate into antennal fate. It was found that uniform expression of Dll in the eye disc (ey>Dll) resulted in mild eye reduction, whereas ey>hth completely abolished eye development. E132>Dll caused the formation of small antenna in the eye in about 46% of flies, whereas ptc>Dll and C68a>Dll induced extra antenna but not within the eye field. Therefore, although Dll and hth are important determinants for antennal identity, it is their specific spatial expression patterns that determine antennal development. (3) Creating the intersection of Wg and Dpp signaling does not change the eye into antenna. Such manipulation in the leg disc turned on vg and transdetermined the leg disc into wing disc. Therefore, the specific genes induced by Dpp and Wg signaling may depend on disc-specific factors. In the eye disc, turning on Wg signaling in the dpp expressing morphogenetic furrow only blocked furrow progression (Duong, 2008).

In this study, it was found that the ectopic expression of a single gene, Dip3, can cause eye-to-antenna transformation. Dip3 apparently satisfied all three requirements. (1) Overexpression of Dip3 repressed (non-cell-autonomously) ey and dac. The repression of ey may be due to the induction of ct. The ability of Dip3 to simultaneously repress multiple retinal determination genes is completely consistent with the many known cross-regulatory interactions between these genes. (2) ey>Dip3 turned on ct and hth. (3) By blocking cell proliferation, ey>dip3 reduced the eye field size and allowed the intersection of Dpp and Wg signaling. Furthermore, ey>Dip3 induced en, which probably created an ectopic A/P border and induced ectopic dpp/wg expression (Duong, 2008).

Interference with cell cycle progression appears to be a common link between the two phenotypes described in this study. In the case of antennal duplication, interference with eye disc growth leads to antennal disc overgrowth, which is a prerequisite for duplication. In the case of eye-to-antenna transformation, eye disc undergrowth allows the required intersection between Dpp and Wg signaling (Duong, 2008).

The observation that Dip3 misexpression can transform the eye field, but not other tissues, to an antennal fate suggests a close evolutionary relationship between the eye and the antenna. Previous studies have emphasized the homology between antennae and legs. The findings presented here that misexpression of a single transcription factor, namely Dip3, can transform eyes to antennae provides support for the notion that the eye and antenna may also, in some sense, be homologous to one another. Previous evidence in support of this idea comes from the observation that similar spatial arrangements of Wg and Dpp signaling along with a temporal cue provided by the ecdysone signal are required for the formation of the eye and the mechanosensory auditory organ. Small mechanosensory sensilla, such as Johnston's organ and the chordotonal organs (stretch receptors) are thought to represent the earliest evolving sense organs. Perhaps the eye resulted from a duplication and specialization of such a sensillum (Duong, 2008).

Drosophila colour vision is achieved by R7 and R8 photoreceptor cells present in every ommatidium. The fly retina contains two types of ommatidia, called 'pale' and 'yellow', defined by different rhodopsin pairs expressed in R7 and R8 cells. Similar to the human cone photoreceptors, these ommatidial subtypes are distributed stochastically in the retina. The choice between pale versus yellow ommatidia is made in R7 cells, which then impose their fate onto R8. The Drosophila dioxin receptor Spineless is both necessary and sufficient for the formation of the ommatidial mosaic. A short burst of spineless expression at mid-pupation in a large subset of R7 cells precedes rhodopsin expression. In spineless mutants, all R7 and most R8 cells adopt the pale fate, whereas overexpression of spineless is sufficient to induce the yellow R7 fate. Therefore, this study suggests that the entire retinal mosaic required for colour vision is defined by the stochastic expression of a single transcription factor, Spineless (Wernet, 2006).

The ability to discriminate between colours has evolved independently in vertebrates and invertebrates. However, despite the obvious differences in eye development and design, both flies and humans have developed retinal mosaics where classes of photoreceptor cells (PRs) with different spectral sensitivity are randomly distributed. The compound eye of Drosophila consists of ~800 optical units (ommatidia), each containing eight PRs in addition to accessory cells. In each ommatidium, the six 'outer PRs' (R1-R6) function like the vertebrate rod cells, as they are required for motion detection in dim light. These cells express the broad-spectrum rhodopsin, Rh1. The 'inner PRs' (R7 and R8) may be viewed as the equivalent of the colour-sensitive vertebrate cone cells, which express a range of different rhodopsin molecules (Wernet, 2006).

The general rule of sensory receptor exclusion also applies to Drosophila ommatidia, where only one rhodopsin gene is expressed by a given PR. The expression of inner PR rhodopsins can be used to distinguish three ommatidial subtypes. Two of the subtypes are distributed randomly throughout the retina: ~30% of ommatidia express ultraviolet-sensitive Rh3 in R7 cells and blue-sensitive Rh5 in R8 cells, and therefore are specialized in the detection of short wavelengths ('pale' ommatidia). The remaining ~70% express another ultraviolet-sensitive opsin (Rh4) in R7 and green-sensitive Rh6 in R8, making them more responsive to longer wavelengths ('yellow' ommatidia). The coupled expression of Rh3/Rh5 or Rh4/Rh6 within the same ommatidium results from communication between R7 and R8. In the dorsal rim area (DRA), a third type of ommatidia exists in which both R7 and R8 express ultraviolet-sensitive Rh3. These ommatidia are used to detect the e-vector of polarized sunlight for orientation. Spatially localized polarized light detectors and stochastically distributed colour-sensitive ommatidia therefore reflect two fundamentally different specification strategies that shape the retinal mosaic of Drosophila (Wernet, 2006).

The current model for specifying colour-sensitive ommatidia combines stochastic and instructive steps. First, a subset of R7 (pale R7, pR7) stochastically chooses Rh3 expression over the 'R7 default', Rh4. Second, these cells then impose the p fate (Rh5) onto R8 (pale R8, pR8) of the same ommatidium (Wernet, 2006).

This study reports the identification of spineless (ss) as a key regulatory gene for establishing the retinal mosaic. ss encodes the Drosophila homologue of the human arylhydrocarbon ('dioxin') receptor, a member of the bHLH-PAS (basic helix-loop-helix- Period-Arnt-Single-minded) family of transcription factors. At mid-pupation, ss is stochastically expressed in a majority of R7 that seem to correspond to the y subtype. ss is both necessary and sufficient to specify the yellow R7 (yR7) fate and subsequently the entire y ommatidia; pR7 cells are thus specified by default, and stochastic expression of ss represents the key regulatory event defining the retinal mosaic required for fly colour vision (Wernet, 2006).

homothorax (hth) has been identified as the key regulatory gene necessary and sufficient for the specification of DRA ommatidia. ss and hth cause similar homeotic phenotypes: that is, complete (hth) or partial (ss, 'aristapedia') transformation of antennae into legs. Therefore, a potential role of ss in ommatidial subtype specification was tested by generating whole-mutant eyes, as well as mitotic clones, lacking ss function using the null allele ss^D115.7 and the ey-FLP/FRT technique. Owing to ey-FLP expression in the antennal imaginal disc, ss mutant flies showed a strong aristapedia phenotyp, but lacked any obvious morphological eye phenotype. However, expression of rhodopsin genes was severely affected. In wild-type eyes, Rh3 is found in ~30% of R7 cells, as well as in both R7 and R8 of DRA-ommatidia, whereas the remaining ~70% of R7 contain Rh4. In ss mutant eyes, Rh4 was completely absent, whereas Rh3 was expanded into all R7 cells. The total number of ommatidia was not reduced, indicating that R7 cells were mis-specified into pR7, rather than yR7 being specifically eliminated. ss mutant mitotic clones were morphologically wild type; however, Rh3 was always present in mutant R7 cells (marked by the absence of ß-galactosidase (ß-gal) expression), whereas Rh4 was always lost (Wernet, 2006).

To test whether the R7 ss phenotype was cell autonomous, individual mutant R7 cells were generated using the MARCM technique. All mutant R7 cells [marked by the presence of green fluorescent protein (GFP) expression] contained Rh3 and never Rh4, demonstrating that ss is required cell autonomously in R7 to induce Rh4 expression. DRA ommatidia were correctly specified in ss mutant eyes, since Rh3 was expressed normally in both DRA R7 and R8 cells. Therefore, ss is necessary for the establishment of the yR7 subtype without affecting PR fate specification (Wernet, 2006).

The ommatidial subtypes are first specified in R7, which then instruct R8. Therefore, ss mutant eyes should exhibit a rhodopsin phenotype in R8. In wild types, ~30% of R8 cells contain Rh5, and the remaining ~70% contain Rh6. In ss mutant eyes, the large majority (up to 95%) of R8 contained Rh5, with some R8 still containing Rh6. However, most of these remaining yR8 cells were located in the dorsal third of the eye. In this part of the retina, instruction of pale R8 (pR8) by pR7 is less efficient, resulting in ommatidia with odd-coupled (Rh3/Rh6) rhodopsin expression. In ss mutants, the frequency of such ommatidia was significantly increased in the dorsal region. To test whether the R8 opsin phenotype of ss mutants resulted from the inability of some mutant R7 cells to properly instruct R8, rather than from ss being directly required in R8, sevenless; spineless (sev; ss) double-mutant eyes were generated (Wernet, 2006).

These eyes, which lacked R7 cells, always exhibited the sev single-mutant phenotype, with virtually all R8 cells containing Rh6. This indicates that ss is required in R7 for the formation of the yR7 subtype, and consequently for the formation of yR8, without being directly required in R8 PRs (Wernet, 2006).

Whether ss was also sufficient to induce the y ommatidial subtype was tested. Overexpression of ss in all developing PRs using a strong LGMR (long glass multiple reporter)-Gal4 driver and UAS-ss (LGMR.ss flies) resulted in a rough eye phenotype, as well as a dramatic rhodopsin phenotype: Rh4 was activated in all PRs throughout the eye (R1-R6 as well as R7 and R8), as revealed by ectopic expression of an Rh4-GFP reporter in many PRs per ommatidium compared with wild type. To avoid the strong phenotype in the eye, ss was misexpressed using the weaker, variegated GMR driver, sGMR (short GMR)-Gal4³¹ (sGMR.ss flies). This led to strong ectopic induction of Rh4 in many PRs without severely affecting retinal morphology. This ectopic induction of Rh4 was also observed in sev mutants, and was thus independent of R7. Rh3 was still detected in some R7 in sGMR.ss flies, presumably due to the lack of variegated Gal4 expression in these cells, whereas Rh4 was expanded to some outer PRs. However, co-localization of Rh3 and Rh4 was never observed, confirming that gain of Rh4 in R7 cells always leads to the exclusion of Rh3. In contrast, gain of Rh4 in outer PRs did not lead to the exclusion of Rh1; frequent coexpression of Rh1 and Rh4 was observed (Wernet, 2006).

Using an Rh4-lacZ reporter construct in LGMR.ss flies, it was found that ß-gal-positive PR axons projected to both lamina and medulla, confirming the expansion of Rh4 into outer PRs. However, Rh4-expressing outer PRs were not transformed into genuine R7 cells, since they maintained their lamina projections. Notably, DRA inner PRs were the only cells not expressing Rh4, suggesting that the DRA fate, specified by the gene hth, antagonizes ss function. Expression of Rh3 and Rh5 was completely lost (including in the DRA, where no rhodopsin was detected), while Rh6 expression was found in most R8 cells. This resulted in R8 coexpressing Rh4 and Rh6, demonstrating that the 'one sensory receptor per cell' rule can be broken in Drosophila PRs, as has been shown in other insects. Therefore, ectopic induction of the yR7 fate by ss specifically excludes the formation of pR7 cells. As a consequence, R8 cells expressing Rh5 are not induced, with most R8 expressing Rh6. Rh6 was never found in outer PRs, supporting the hypothesis that ss is required only in R7 for the choice between Rh3 and Rh4, and not directly in R8 for the Rh6 choice. In LGMR.ss flies, the specification of outer versus inner PRs (markers spalt and seven up) or of R7 versus R8 (prospero and senseless) was normal. Thus, ss acts by segregating ommatidial subtypes downstream of early PR specification events (Wernet, 2006).

Colour PR cell fate determination seems to be a late event in PR differentiation. To test whether ss can transform the R7 fate at late stages of development, the PanR7-Gal4 driver (which is also expressed in DRA R8 cells) was used. Late mis-expression of ss induced the y fate (Rh4) in all R7 cells, whereas Rh3 was absent. Opsin expression in the DRA was also altered, with Homothorax-positive cells (both R7 and R8) now expressing Rh4. Hence, it is possible to reprogramme the R7 fate at later stages of differentiation, as PanR7-Gal4 becomes activated at the time of rhodopsin expression. Surprisingly, expression of R8 rhodopsins outside the DRA was not affected, since the distribution of Rh5 and Rh6 resembled the wild type. As a result, many ommatidia manifested the very unusual coupling of Rh4 in R7 and Rh5 in R8. Therefore, although ss is able to reprogramme all R7 late in development, R8 cannot revert their fate once they have been instructed to become pR8, and they maintain Rh5. Two antagonistic genes expressed in either of the two R8 subtypes have been identified that act together as a molecular consolidation system responsible for this inertia of R8. To confirm that late expression of ss exclusively in R7 is sufficient to transform R7, ss was mis-expressed in ss^D115.7 mutants using PanR7-Gal4. This was sufficient to induce Rh4 and to repress Rh3. R8 were again not reprogrammed and exhibited the ss mutant phenotype, with many R8 cells expressing Rh5 (Wernet, 2006).

All of the results presented above strongly indicated that ss must be expressed in the y subtype of R7 at some point during pupal development. Since several attempts to generate an anti-Spineless antibody had failed, in situ hybridization was used to detect ss messenger RNA in the retina at mid-pupation. At ~50% pupation, ss mRNA was detected in four neuronal cells per ommatidial cluster, one PR and three bristle cells. The PR was also labelled by anti-Prospero, confirming its identity as R7. Although the expression levels of ss in bristle cells seemed uniformly high, levels of ss expression varied considerably among R7 cells, ranging from very faint to very strong in 60%-80% of R7. A 1.6 kilobase 'eye enhancer' fragment (ss_eye) was also identified within the ss promoter that drives PR-specific expression. After crossing ss eye-Gal4 to UAS-ß-gal::NLS (nuclear localization sequence) reporters, PR-specific ss expression was first detected at mid-pupation-that is, approximately one day before rhodopsins are expressed, and before any visible molecular or morphological distinction between ommatidial subtypes. A single PR per ommatidium, which was identified as R7 through co-staining with Prospero, expressed ss. Thus, the ss eye enhancer recapitulates endogenous ss expression in PRs. ss expression was detected in 60%-80% of R7, correlating well with the distribution of Rh4 in adult retina. Like Rh4-expressing ommatidia, ß-gal-positive ommatidia were more abundant in the dorsal half of the eye, and no ß-gal expression was detected in the DRA (marked by Homothorax), where Rh4 is also never expressed. ss eye-Gal4 expression was detectable for only ~2 h at midpupation (Wernet, 2006).

Although it was not possible to directly co-stain for ss and Rh4 (which starts to be expressed one day later during pupation), it seems that at mid-pupation a short pulse of ss is deployed in a large subset of R7, which will become yR7 (Wernet, 2006).

Whether a short pulse of ectopic ss expression was able to modify the entire retinal mosaic was tested using a heat shock-Gal4 driver (hs-Gal4) to temporally control ss expression (hs.ss flies). A 30-min heat shock at ~50% pupation indeed resulted in an increase of Rh4 expression with a concomitant reduction of Rh3 in adults. The phenotype varied extensively, from only R7 cells expressing Rh4 (~25% of the flies analysed had Rh4 in most R7), to almost every PR expressing Rh4. In contrast, a 30-min pulse of ss in one-day-old adult flies had no effect. Heat shocks during larval or early pupal stages were lethal. Thus, PRs are extremely sensitive to a short pulse of ss during mid-pupation, at the time when endogenous ss is normally expressed. To further study the mechanism of the stochastic choice between p and y ommatidia, the retinal mosaic was examined in different mutant backgrounds. Flies heterozygous for ss^D115.7 had fewer Rh4-expressing R7 cells. Since the ss^D115.7 allele affects only the ss coding sequence, heterozygous flies have two functional promoters, only one of which produces a functional protein, suggesting that the non-productive promoter might sequester limiting factor(s) that regulate(s) the expression levels of ss. If this hypothesis is correct, addition of extra copies of the ss promoter should have a similar effect. Indeed, the addition of two functional copies of the ss eye enhancer (ss eye-Gal4) in an otherwise wild-type background also caused a significant reduction of the yR7 subtype. Therefore, the level of Spineless expression is important for the induction of the yR7 fate, which is less efficient in cells where the amount of Spineless is reduced (Wernet, 2006).

Retinal patterning in Drosophila reveals an original mechanism for how PR mosaics can be generated: stochastic expression of a single transcription factor (Spineless) acts as a binary switch that transforms the seemingly homogeneous compound eye into a mosaic, distinguishing p and y subtypes. However, subtype specification and rhodopsin expression can be separated, since ss expression in yR7 has ceased well before the time of rhodopsin expression. Additional factors are therefore required downstream of ss to ensure expression of adult p- and y-specific markers such as rhodopsins and additional screening pigments. A revised two-step model is proposed for the stochastic specification of p and y ommatidia. First, R7 are stochastically divided into two subtypes by the induction of ss in yR7. ss-positive R7 express Rh4, whereas the remaining R7 choose the pR7 fate and express Rh3 by default. Second, only those R7 cells that did not express ss (pR7) retain the ability to induce the pR8 fate (Rh5), whereas yR8 express Rh6 by default. The 'default states' of R7 (Rh3) and R8 (Rh6) therefore belong to opposite subtypes. Expression of R8 rhodopsin genes is maintained by a bistable regulatory loop containing the genes warts and melted34. Notably, the localized specification of polarization-sensitive DRA ommatidia by hth antagonizes the stochastic choice executed by ss, placing these two genes into a new regulatory relationship during retinal patterning. Therefore, the role of the transcription factor Spineless is to generate the retinal mosaic required for fly colour vision by distinguishing yR7 from pR7 cell fates, and preventing R7 from instructing the underlying R8 cells. Mosaic expression of sensory receptors has been described in detail for the olfactory system of both vertebrates and insects, and random PR mosaics have been described for humans and amphibians, as well as insects. Two transcription factors have been shown to regulate the specification of blue versus red/green cone cell fates in mammals. Upon mutation of either - the human nuclear receptor NR2E3 (also known as PNR) or the rodent thyroid hormone ß2 receptor - the number of blue cones is dramatically increased at the expense of green cones, leading to 'enhanced S-cone syndrome'. It should be noted that this retinal phenotype bears important similarity to the altered ommatidial mosaic in Drosophila ss mutants, where long wavelength-sensitive y ommatidia are lost at the expense of the short wavelength-sensitive p type (Wernet, 2006).

The stochastic cell fate choice occurs at the level of the ss promoter: the very short pulse of ss expression at mid-pupation is not only controlled temporally, but its levels are also critical, and only ~70% of R7 receive enough Spineless to commit to the yR7 fate. Elucidating the mechanism that controls ss expression will shed some light into the fascinating process of stochastic gene expression, and the identification of its downstream targets will provide insights into consolidation and maintenance of cell fates (Wernet, 2006).

Contribution of photoreceptor subtypes to spectral wavelength preference in Drosophila

The visual systems of most species contain photoreceptors with distinct spectral sensitivities that allow animals to distinguish lights by their spectral composition. In Drosophila, photoreceptors R1-R6 have the same spectral sensitivity throughout the eye and are responsible for motion detection. In contrast, photoreceptors R7 and R8 exhibit heterogeneity and are important for color vision (see Normalized spectral quantum sensitivity of the different rhodopsins in the photoreceptor subtypes R7p, R7y, R8p, R8y, and R1-R6). This study investigated how photoreceptor types contribute to the attractiveness of light by blocking the function of certain subsets and by measuring differential phototaxis between spectrally different lights. In a 'UV vs. blue' choice, flies with only R1-R6, as well as flies with only R7/R8 photoreceptors, preferred blue, suggesting a nonadditive interaction between the two major subsystems. Flies defective for UV-sensitive R7 function preferred blue, whereas flies defective for either type of R8 (blue- or green-sensitive) preferred UV. In a 'blue vs. green' choice, flies defective for R8 (blue) preferred green, whereas those defective for R8 (green) preferred blue. Involvement of all photoreceptors [R1-R6, R7, R8 (blue), R8 (green)] distinguishes phototaxis from motion detection that is mediated exclusively by R1-R6 (Yamaguchi, 2010).

Phototaxis consists of at least three behavioral components: (1) detection of an object or a light source in visual space; (2) the attractiveness or aversiveness of the light stimulus at this location; and (3) a motor output (goal-directed walking and turning). Genetic dissection of the visual input to phototaxis relies on the assumption that phototaxis stays intact even if some of these inputs are deleted, i.e., that the mutants can still detect the locations of the two stimuli and move toward or away from them. Although in mutants affecting the R1-R6 subsystem, walking speed, turning, and orientation toward stationary objects are affected, these behaviors are sufficiently intact to support phototaxis. In the experiments reported in this study, light intensities were chosen such that all mutants had at least one photoreceptor type that could detect the light sources and guide walking and turning behavior. This allowed measuring of the second component, the differential attractiveness of the two stimuli, which determined the choice between the two monochromatic lights depending upon the photoreceptor types available in the respective fly strains. Flies could judge the attractiveness of a light source on the basis of its spectral composition and/or spectrally weighted brightness. In the following paragraphs the contributions of the four types of photoreceptors R1-R6, R7, R8p, and R8y to the attractiveness function are discussed (Yamaguchi, 2010).

Blocking or removing any one of the photoreceptor types shifts the preference away from the point of neutrality in at least one of the choice tests. Silencing the R1-R6 cells leaves the flies with a modest blue preference in the UV/B choice, and replacing their broadly sensitive opsin Rh1 by the UV-sensitive opsin Rh3 shifts the preference in the B/G choice to blue. Removing or silencing R7 in the presence of R1-R6 shifts the preference in the UV/B choice to blue and in the B/G choice to green. Inactivating the green-sensitive Rh6 opsin in R8y cells shifts the preference in the B/G choice to blue and in the UV/B choice to UV. Inactivating blue-sensitive Rh5 in the R8p cells causes a green preference in the B/G choice and a UV preference in the UV/B choice (Yamaguchi, 2010).

Each of the three photoreceptor subsystems (R1-R6, R7, R8) alone can drive phototaxis. Flies with only photoreceptors R1-R6 (sev rh5² rh6¹ triple mutants) show a blue preference in the UV/B choice, implying that this subsystem not only mediates optomotor responses and orientation but also can mediate the attractiveness function in phototaxis, i.e., that, with only R1-R6 photoreceptors, flies compare the quantum flux of two light sources 180° apart (Yamaguchi, 2010).

The R8 subsystem alone can also mediate the attractiveness function in phototaxis (sev ninaE¹⁷), as had been shown before for the sev rdgB double mutant. The sev ninaE¹⁷ flies have a pronounced green preference in the B/G choice test, consistent with the absorption spectrum of Rh6 expressed in all R8 photoreceptors (Yamaguchi, 2010).

Flies that have only R7 photoreceptors operating (ninaE¹⁷, rh5², rh6¹) show phototaxis. Surprisingly, they have a very strong preference for blue in both choice tests. This could be explained if R7p inhibit R7y photoreceptors. Otherwise, the flies would show a strong UV preference in the UV/B choice. As an alternative explanation, however, it is possible that phototaxis is mediated by the ocelli in flies with only R7 photoreceptors (Yamaguchi, 2010).

As long as only one of the central photoreceptor subsystems R7 or R8 is inactivated, the results can be explained by a model in which the respective photoreceptors contribute roughly additively to the attractiveness function. In the honeybee, all three subtypes of photoreceptors (UV, blue, and green) also feed into phototaxis. Spectral mixing experiments in phototaxis are consistent with simple summation of quantal fluxes, and the action spectra of phototactic behavior also suggest pooling of all three photoreceptor types. Color information, i.e., comparison between different photoreceptors, does not appear to be used in honeybee phototaxis (Yamaguchi, 2010 and references therein).

A simple summation model thus can no longer explain the results of all of the genetic manipulations of photoreceptor types in Drosophila presented in this study. When all four photoreceptor types are intact, UV light is more attractive than would be expected from the sum of the UV attractiveness values of the two isolated major subsystems, R1-R6 and R7/R8. In the UV/B choice test that is balanced for wild type, both flies with only the R1-R6 subsystem (sev rh5² rh6¹) and flies with only the R7/R8 subsystem (rh1 > shi^ts or ninaE¹⁷) show a blue preference. It is thus necessary to postulate that an interaction between the two major retinal subsystems R1-R6 and R7/R8 enhances UV attractiveness. The interaction cannot be explained by an attenuation of the attractiveness of blue because no increased blue preference of the two mutants is observed in the B/G choice. The interaction can unambiguously be traced to the R7 cells. In fact, the strength of the contribution of R7 to the attractiveness function in the UV/B choice depends upon which of the other photoreceptor types are functional. No effect of R7 on spectral preference can be detected without a functional R1-R6 subsystem (comparing ninaE¹⁷ and sev ninaE¹⁷ in both choice tests. A moderate effect is found in the presence of R1-R6 and R8 (comparing wild type and sev; whereas the effect of R7 is large in the absence of the R8 subsystem (comparing rh5² rh6¹ and sev rh5² rh6¹ in UV/B choice (Yamaguchi, 2010).

The most parsimonious explanation of the data is to assume that, in the presence of a functional R8 subsystem, neither the R1-R6 nor the R7 subsystems on their own have a direct input to the attractiveness function. In the absence of R7 (mutant sev), the R1-R6 subsystem seems not to matter for attractiveness although the R8 subsystem is lacking spectral sensitivity in the UV. Likewise, in the absence of a functional R1-R6 subsystem, the R7 subsystem seems not to contribute. Interestingly, as soon as R8y photoreceptors (or R8p and R8y) are inactivated, the other two subsystems exert their influence on the attractiveness function independently of each other. A full model of these interactions would require a more complete investigation (Yamaguchi, 2010).

R1-R6 rhabdomeres degenerate in ninaE¹⁷ mutants, and this degeneration may have secondary effects on the R7/R8 cells. However, there is no significant difference between ninaE¹⁷ mutants and flies expressing rh1>shi^ts, in which R1-R6 function is disrupted without affecting rhabdomere structures. Moreover, it was recently reported that R8y are functional in ninaE¹⁷ mutants because circadian entrainment to red light, which is still observed in ninaE¹⁷, is abolished in ninaE¹⁷ rh6¹ double mutants (Yamaguchi, 2010).

The data reveal a further deviation from a simple summation of photoreceptor inputs to the attractiveness function. In the melt^GOF mutant, green-sensitive R8y cells are transformed into blue-sensitive R8p cells. This should shift their preference in the UV/B choice to blue. Yet, a UV shift is observed. In contrast, in the absence of R7 cells, the transformation of R8y to R8p photoreceptors (comparison between sev and sev melt^GOF) increases the blue preference in the UV/B choice as would be expected from spectral sensitivities. This might indicate that R8p cells enhance the input of the UV channel (R1-R6 × R7) to the attractiveness function. These findings, however, should be treated with caution as unknown developmental defects in the sev and melt^GOF mutants might account for the phenotypes (Yamaguchi, 2010).

Using a different phototaxis paradigm, Jacob (1977) proposed a model to explain the nonadditive effects observed in his phototaxis experiments. An inhibition of R1-R6 by R7/R8 was postulated and it was suggested that R7 cells function only when the R1-R6 system is intact. The current results ask for revision of this model. No general inhibition of the R1-R6 receptor subsystem by R7/R8 was found. The data suggest that neither the R1-R6 nor the R7 subsystems have access to the attractiveness function on their own, except in the absence of functional R8y photoreceptors. Moreover, R8p cells in the current tests had an effect only in the presence of functional R8y cells (Yamaguchi, 2010).

Rh3-expressing R8 cells in the dorsal rim area account for about 10% of all Rh3 expressing cells. These R8 are still present in sev flies, but are switched off in panR7> shi^ts flies. The comparison of these two lines does not reveal an effect of the Rh3-expressing R8 cells in the UV/B choice. Taking these cells into consideration therefore does not change any of the above conclusions (Yamaguchi, 2010).

This study has shown that all four photoreceptor types [R1-R6, R7(p, y), R8p, and R8y] are involved in phototaxis, in contrast to motion detection, which relies exclusively on R1-R6 photoreceptors. The wild-type attractiveness function cannot be described as the sum of the attractiveness functions of flies lacking one or more functional photoreceptor types. A multiplicative interaction is observed between photoreceptors R1-R6 and R7. In the absence of functional R1-R6 or R7, the attractiveness function is governed by R8. Only in the absence of R8 and one of the other two subsystems does the remaining subsystem govern the attractiveness function. A recent study on the neuronal substrate of spectral preference identified postsynaptic interneurons in the medulla (Gao, 2008) that are good candidates for mediating some of these interactions. Their involvement in differential phototaxis can now be tested (Yamaguchi, 2010).

The attractiveness function of differential phototaxis is easy to record, robust, and sensitive (for example, Rh5-expressing blue-sensitive cells account for only ~4% of all photoreceptors, yet yield a significant phenotype when they are not functional). Differential phototaxis may lend itself to mutant screens affecting other chromaticity computations in the brain, including color vision, at the circuit level (Yamaguchi, 2010).

The extraretinal eyelet of Drosophila, the adult remnant of Bolwig's organ

Circadian rhythms can be entrained by light to follow the daily solar cycle. In adult flies a pair of extraretinal eyelets expressing immunoreactivity to Rhodopsin 6 each contains four photoreceptors located beneath the posterior margin of the compound eye. Their axons project to the region of the pacemaker center in the brain with a trajectory resembling that of Bolwig's organ, the visual organ of the larva. A lacZ reporter line driven by an upstream fragment of the developmental gap gene Kruppel is a specific enhancer element for Bolwig's organ. Expression of immunoreactivity to the product of lacZ in Bolwig's organ persists through pupal metamorphosis and survives in the adult eyelet. It is thus demonstrated that the adult eyelet derives from the 12 photoreceptors of Bolwig's organ, which entrain circadian rhythmicity in the larva. Double labeling with anti-pigment-dispersing hormone shows that the terminals of Bolwig's nerve differentiate during metamorphosis in close temporal and spatial relationship to the ventral lateral neurons (LN_v), which are essential to express circadian rhythmicity in the adult. Bolwig's organ also expresses immunoreactivity to Rhodopsin 6, which thus continues to be expressed in the adult eyelet. Action spectra of entrainment were compared in different fly strains: in flies lacking compound eyes but retaining the adult eyelet (so¹), lacking both compound eyes and the adult eyelet (so¹;gl^60j), and retaining the adult eyelet but lacking compound eyes as well as Cryptochrome (so¹;cry^b). Responses to phase shifts suggest that, in the absence of compound eyes, the eyelet together with Cryptochrome mainly mediates phase delays. Thus a functional role in circadian entrainment first found in Bolwig's organ in the larva is retained in the eyelet, the adult remnant of Bolwig's organ, even in the face of metamorphic restructuring (Helfrich-Forster, 2002).

References

Bhaskar, V. and Courey, A. J. (2002). The MADF-BESS domain factor Dip3 potentiates synergistic activation by Dorsal and Twist. Gene 299(1-2): 173-84. PubMed Citation: 12459265

Duong, H. A., et al. (2008). Transformation of eye to antenna by misexpression of a single gene. Mech. Dev. 125: 130-141. PubMed Citation: 18037276

Freeman, M. (1997). Cell determination strategies in the Drosophila eye. Development 124, 261-270. 9053303

Gao, S., et al. (2008) The neural substrate of spectral preference in Drosophila. Neuron 60: 328-342. PubMed Citation: 18957224

Helfrich-Forster, C., Edwards, T., Yasuyama, K., Wisotzki, B., Schneuwly, S., Stanewsky, R., Meinertzhagen, I. A. and Hofbauer, A. (2002). The extraretinal eyelet of Drosophila: development, ultrastructure, and putative circadian function. J. Neurosci. 22: 9255-926. 12417651

Jacob, K. G., et al. (1977). T-maze phototaxis of Drosophila melanogaster and several mutants in the visual system. J. Comp. Physiol. 116: 209-225

Kumar, J. P. and Moses, K. (2001). EGF receptor and Notch signaling act upstream of Eyeless/Pax6 to control eye specification. Cell 104: 687-697. 11257223

Ready, D. F., Hanson, T. E. and Benzer, S. (1976). Development of the Drosophila retina, a neurocrystalline lattice. Dev. Biol. 53: 217-240. PubMed Citation: 825400

Wernet, M. F., et al. (2006). Stochastic spineless expression creates the retinal mosaic for colour vision. Nature 440(7081): 174-80. PubMed Citation: 16525464

Yamaguchi, S., Desplan, C. and Heisenberg, M. (2010). Contribution of photoreceptor subtypes to spectral wavelength preference in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107(12): 5634-9. PubMed Citation: 20212139

Genes involved in organ development

Home page: The Interactive Fly © 1995, 1996 Thomas B. Brody, Ph.D.

The Interactive Fly resides on the
Society for Developmental Biology's Web server.