Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Dec 5;18(12):e0295412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295412

The Drosophila drop-dead gene is required for eggshell integrity

Tayler D Sheahan 1,¤a, Amanpreet Grewal 1, Laura E Korthauer 1,¤b, Edward M Blumenthal 1,*
Editor: Shubha Govind2
PMCID: PMC10697589  PMID: 38051756

Abstract

The eggshell of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is a useful model for understanding the synthesis of a complex extracellular matrix. The eggshell is synthesized during mid-to-late oogenesis by the somatic follicle cells that surround the developing oocyte. We previously reported that female flies mutant for the gene drop-dead (drd) are sterile, but the underlying cause of the sterility remained unknown. In this study, we examined the role of drd in eggshell synthesis. We show that eggs laid by drd mutant females are fertilized but arrest early in embryogenesis, and that the innermost layer of the eggshell, the vitelline membrane, is abnormally permeable to dye in these eggs. In addition, the major vitelline membrane proteins fail to become crosslinked by nonreducible bonds, a process that normally occurs during egg activation following ovulation, as evidenced by their solubility and detection by Western blot in laid eggs. In contrast, the Cp36 protein, which is found in the outer chorion layers of the eggshell, becomes crosslinked normally. To link the drd expression pattern with these phenotypes, we show that drd is expressed in the ovarian follicle cells beginning in mid-oogenesis, and, importantly, that all drd mutant eggshell phenotypes could be recapitulated by selective knockdown of drd expression in the follicle cells. To determine whether drd expression was required for the crosslinking itself, we performed in vitro activation and crosslinking experiments. The vitelline membranes of control egg chambers could become crosslinked either by incubation in hyperosmotic medium, which activates the egg chambers, or by exogenous peroxidase and hydrogen peroxide. In contrast, neither treatment resulted in the crosslinking of the vitelline membrane in drd mutant egg chambers. These results indicate that drd expression in the follicle cells is necessary for vitelline membrane proteins to serve as substrates for peroxidase-mediated cross-linking at the end of oogenesis.

Introduction

Animal epithelial cells produce an extracellular matrix (ECM) that must perform many roles, including as a structural support, barrier, and source of signaling molecules [13]. The eggshell of the insect Drosophila melanogaster is a model ECM consisting of five layers of protein, lipid, and carbohydrate [4]. Among its functions, the Drosophila eggshell serves as physical protection and a selective permeability barrier, provides patterning signals for the oocyte and developing embryo, and binds pheromones that prevent cannibalism by conspecific larvae [57]. Eggshell components are primarily synthesized by the follicle cells, a layer of somatic epithelial cells that surround the 15 germline nurse cells and single oocyte; together these three cell types make up the basic unit of oogenesis, the egg chamber.

Early in oogenesis, the follicle cells form a morphologically uniform, cuboidal epithelium around the germline cells, with the apical surface of the epithelium facing the germline. At mid-oogenesis (stage 8 of the 14 stages of oogenesis), the oocyte begins to grow, and the large majority of follicle cells subsequently migrate posteriorly to cover the oocyte surface and undergo a transition from cuboidal to columnar morphology [8, 9]. A small number of follicle cells, the stretch cells, remain covering the nurse cells and transition to a squamous morphology; the stretch cells are required for the death and engulfment of the nurse cells in late oogenesis [10]. At the end of oogenesis (stage 14), the oocyte takes up the entire egg chamber, the follicle cells undergo cell death, and the follicle cell layer is shed during ovulation [11].

The innermost layer of the eggshell is the proteinaceous vitelline membrane (VM). It is composed of six related structural proteins encoded by the genes Vm26Aa, Vm26Ab, Vm26Ac, Vm32E, Vm34Ca, and Vml, as well as other less abundant proteins [4, 1216]. While most VM components are produced by the follicle cells and secreted apically, at least three proteins, encoded by fs(1)Nasrat (fs(1)N), fs(1)polehole (fs(1)ph) and closca (clos), are secreted by the oocyte and become incorporated into the developing VM [1719]. VM components are synthesized during mid-oogenesis (stages 8–11), followed by components of the multilayered outer sections of the eggshell, the chorion, in stages 11–12 [4, 20, 21].

Following their synthesis and secretion, the proteins of the VM become cross-linked, forming a stable and insoluble matrix. The VM proteins are cross-linked to each other by disulfide bonds during the early stages of eggshell formation [15, 22]. Immediately following ovulation and egg activation, VM proteins become cross-linked by non-reducible bonds, at least some of which are dityrosine bonds [23]. The non-reducible cross-linking of the VM occurs in a matter of minutes as the egg moves down the oviduct; soluble VM proteins are never detected in freshly laid eggs [24, 25]. While the formation of dityrosine bonds is typically catalyzed by a peroxidase [2629], the enzyme responsible for VM crosslinking has not been identified.

The structural integrity of the Drosophila VM can be disrupted by mutations in several genes. Mutation of many of the genes encoding VM structural proteins causes gross VM abnormalities and collapse of the eggs [3032], as do mutations in the cadherin Cad99C [33, 34], which is localized to microvilli on the apical surface of the follicle cells, and the eggshell components yellow-g and yellow-g2 [12, 35]. Other mutations, in the genes encoding the minor eggshell components Nudel, Palisade (Psd), Clos, Fs(1)ph, and Fs(1)N, result in a disruption in VM protein cross-linking without altering overall VM integrity to the extent of causing eggs to collapse [17, 18, 24, 36, 37], however all of these mutations result in female sterility.

In this paper, we studied the role of the drop-dead (drd) gene in oogenesis. drd encodes a putative integral membrane protein of unknown function with homology to prokaryotic acyltransferases [38]. Mutation of drd causes a wide range of phenotypes, including female sterility, early adult death and neurodegeneration, defective food movement through the gut, and absence of a peritrophic matrix from the midgut [3943]. The basis for female sterility has not previously been reported. Here we demonstrate that drd expression in the follicle cells is required for non-reducible cross-linking of the VM.

Materials and methods

Drosophila stocks and maintenance

All fly stocks were maintained on standard cornmeal-yeast-agar food (http://flystocks.bio.indiana.edu/Fly_Work/media-recipes/molassesfood.htm) at 25°C on a 12h:12h light-dark cycle. For RNAi experiments, a UAS-Dcr-2 transgene was included in the genetic background of the flies in order to boost RNAi efficiency; the drdGD15915 UAS-Dcr-2 and UAS-Dcr-2 drdGD3367 lines were created previously by recombination between VDRC stocks w1118;P{GD3367}v37404 (FBst0461992) and w1118; P{GD15915}v51184 (FBst0469325) and Bloomington stock w1118; P{UAS-Dcr-2.D}2 (FBst0024650, RRID:BDSC_24650) [44, 45]. The w*; P{w+mW.hsGAL4 = GawB}CY2 stock (FBti0007266, referred to as CY2-GAL4) was provided by Dr. Celeste Berg. Other stocks (w1118; P{UAS-GFP.nls}14 (FBst0004775, RRID:BDSC_4775), P{w+mW.hs = GawB}T155 (FBst0005076, RRID:BDSC_5076, referred to as T155-GAL4), w* ovoD1 v24 P{w+mW.hs = FRT(whs)}101/C(1)DX, y1 f1; P{ry+t7.2 = hsFLP}38 (FBst0001813, RRID:BDSC_1813), and y1 w* v24 P{w+mW.hs = FRT(whs)}101 (FBst0001844, RRID:BDSC_1844)), were obtained from the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center. Creation of the drd-GAL4 driver transgene has been reported previously [40]. The genes and alleles referenced in this work include drd (FBgn0260006), drdlwf (FBal0193421), drd1 (FBal0003113). Stocks were not outcrossed prior to this study.

drd1 sequencing

Whole-fly RNA was prepared from Canton S and drd1 homozygous adults using Trizol reagent (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). RNA was treated with DNase (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and cDNA was synthesized (qScript cDNA supermix, Quantabio, Beverly, MA). Primers for amplification of the exon 8/9 junction were: CG5652 6a 5’ GAT CGC CTG GTG TTT GTT TT 3’ and CG5652 6b 5’ TTC GCT GGG GAT CAC TAA AC 3’.

Egg-laying assay

Groups of 1–3 homozygous drd1/drd1 or drdlwf/drdlwf females were mated with Canton S males and placed on either regular food or food supplemented with yeast paste. Flies were transferred to new vials daily until they died, and the number of eggs laid was recorded. Because groups of three flies were assayed together in early experiments, we analyzed the data twice—once assuming that all eggs were laid by a single fly (model 1) and once assuming that egg-laying was distributed evenly among all flies in a vial (model 2). The conclusions about the proportion of flies that laid eggs were the same in both analyses.

Analysis of embryogenesis

drd1 heterozygotes and homozygotes females were mated with sibling males, and eggs were collected overnight (16.5–18.5 hr) on apple juice agar plates supplemented with yeast paste [46]. Flies were removed and the eggs were allowed to develop for an additional 2–6 hr. Eggs were then covered in halocarbon 700 oil (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and scored for collapsed vs turgid. Turgid eggs were scored for fertilized vs unfertilized, and fertilized eggs were scored for pre-gastrulation stages vs post-gastrulation using photographs of staged embryos [46]. Unfertilized eggs were recognized by the blotchy distribution of yolk in the cytoplasm and absence of any embryonic structures. Pre-gastrulation embryos (stages 1–5) were recognized by the homogeneous distribution of yolk in the cytoplasm and absence of surface invagination or internal embryonic structure, while post-gastrulation embryos (stages 6–16) were recognized by surface invagination or internal structure.

To test the effect of overexpression of Dcr-2 in follicle cells, w1118; P{UAS-Dcr-2.D}2 flies were crossed with either CY2-GAL4 or T155-GAL4 flies. 0–1 day old female progeny were crossed with wild-type males in four groups of 4–8 females for each GAL4 driver (20–24 total females). After two days, flies were transferred to new vials and eggs were collected for three periods of 20–24 hours, counted, and allowed to hatch for 22–31.5 hours, after which live larvae were counted and removed from the vials. Unhatched eggs were observed for four more days, but no additional hatching was seen.

Generation of drd germline clones

Germline mitotic clones mutant for drd were generated using the FLP/FRT-dominant female sterile technique as described [47, 48]. The drdlwf allele was first recombined onto the same chromosome as an FRT site by crossing w drdlwf x y w v P{FRT}101. Following the establishment of a stock carrying this recombinant chromosome, w drdlwf P{FRT}101/FM7a females were crossed with w ovoD1 v P{FRT}101; hs-FLP males. The resulting w drdlwf P{FRT}101/w ovoD1 v P{FRT}101; hs-FLP/+ embryos were heat shocked for 2 hr at 37°C to induce FLPase expression and mitotic recombination, raised to adulthood, and crossed with Canton S males to assay for fertility, as indicated by the presence of live larvae. Control embryos of the same genotype were not heat-shocked. Male progeny of the germline clones were collected and their lifespan measured to confirm the presence of the drdlwf mutation.

Visualization of drd expression pattern

yw drd-GAL4/FM7i-GFP females were crossed with w; UAS-GFP.nls males. Female progeny were crossed with sibling or wild-type males. Ovaries from females 4–7 days post-eclosion were dissected in insect Ringers, fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS (30 minutes, room temperature), washed 3x in PBS, stained with DAPI (diamidino-2-phenylindole, Biotium, Fremont, CA) in PBS (20 μg/mL, 30 minutes, room temperature), and washed 3x in PBS. Ovaries were then separated into individual egg chambers or ovarioles and mounted in Vectashield (Vector Laboratories, Newark, CA) on slides with broken coverslips used as spacers. Samples were imaged on a Nikon A1R Confocal Microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) with NIS-Elements AR software (Nikon).

Neutral red permeability assay

Eggs were collected on apple-juice agar plates for 2–19 hr, placed into a stainless steel mesh basket, and rinsed with PBS. Eggs were dechorionated by gently shaking in a 50% bleach solution for 3 min followed by rinsing with PBS; exposure to bleach was only 1 min for drd1/drd1 and drd1/FM7c. The dechorionated eggs were counted, stained with 5 mg/mL neutral red (VWR, Radnor, PA) in PBS for 10 min, rinsed with PBS, and scored as stained or unstained. No correlation was observed between the duration of the egg collection and the staining results. See S1 File for detailed protocol.

Western blot analysis

Egg chambers were dissected in PBS or eggs were collected on apple-juice agar plates, and samples were homogenized in 80μL of 20mM Tris-HCl (pH7.5), 0.15 M NaCl, 100 mM DTT. Samples were then heated at 100°C for 5 min, centrifuged (14,000g, 1 min), and the resulting pellet discarded. One quarter volume 5x SDS-PAGE loading buffer (0.312 M TRIS-HCl pH 6.8, 10% SDS, 0.05% bromophenol blue) was added to each sample, and they were again heated for 5 min at 100°C and stored at -20°C until further use. Prior to electrophoresis, samples were treated with 5% β-mercaptoethanol and heated for 3 min at 100°C. For any gel, to standardize the amount of protein loaded per lane, the same amount of egg chamber equivalents of each sample was used (2–4 egg chamber or eggs/lane, see figure legends for experiment-specific details). Following separation via SDS-PAGE (12%, Mini PROTEAN 3 System, Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA), proteins were transferred to PVDF membrane for 1hr using a Genie electroblot chamber (Idea Scientific, Minneapolis, MN). Membranes were then washed for 10 min in PBS and blocked overnight in PBS/0.05% Tween-20 (PBS-T)/ 5% nonfat dry milk at 4°C. After blocking, two 5 min washes in PBS-T were conducted prior to 1 hr incubation in primary antibody (Vm26Ab, 1:10,000–25,000; Cp36 1:5000) diluted in PBS-T/1% BSA. Primary polyclonal rabbit antibodies were provided by Dr. Gail Waring and were previously characterized antibodies against Vm26Ab and Cp36 [13].

Membranes were then washed in PBS-T, once for 15 min, and four times for 5 min, followed by a 1 hr incubation in secondary antibody (ECL HRP-linked donkey anti-rabbit IgG, 1:10,000, Cytiva Life Sciences, Marlborough, MA). Again one 15 min and four 4 min washes in PBS-T were conducted and antibody signals were detected via chemiluminescence (ECL Prime Western Blotting System, Cytiva Life Sciences, Marlborough, MA).

Immunostaining

drd1 heterozygous and homozygous females were collected on the day of eclosion and placed on yeast paste with sibling males for two days. Ovaries were immunostained as described [19], except that fixation was performed with 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS rather than formaldehyde in PBS/Triton X-100. Anti-Vm26Ab antibody (same as used in Western blots above) was used at 1:5000, and the secondary antibody was Alexafluor 488 goat anti-rabbit IgG (1:400) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Samples were imaged on a Nikon A1 Confocal Microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) with NIS-Elements AR software (Nikon). VM staining intensity was determined in stage 9 and 10A egg chambers by measuring mean pixel brightness in a 1 μm x 5 μm rectangle overlaying the VM in the anterior lateral margin of the oocyte within the egg chamber (ImageJ v2.9.0), and the analyzer was blind to the genotype shown in each image. The images used for intensity measurements were all taken in one experiment with the same acquisition settings, eliminating the need for normalization of intensity measurements among different experiments. Within each genotype, there was no significant correlation between either VM width or staining intensity and developmental stage (as measured by the length/width ratio of the oocyte within the egg chamber), allowing us to pool data across developmental stages for comparison between genotypes (S5 Fig). A small number of additional images were taken in a different experiment and were used only for measuring oocyte length and width, hence the difference in n between Figs 5C and S5.

Fig 5. Immunostaining of the VM.

Fig 5

Stage 10A egg chambers from a drd1 heterozygote (A) and homozygote (B) were stained with the anti-Vm26Ab antibody. The rectangle indicates the region in which staining intensity and eggshell width were measured. Oo: oocyte; nc: nurse cells; fc: follicle cells. (C) Plot of the size ratio of anterior-posterior length/lateral width for each oocyte as a function of the anterior-posterior length. The lines are the result of simple linear regression of each dataset, showing the slight difference in Y-intercept between drd1 heterozygotes and homozygotes (F test, p<0.0001 for significant linear correlation of each dataset, p = 0.88 for comparison of slopes, p = 0.02 for comparison of Y-intercepts). n = 29 heterozygotes and 25 homozygotes.

In vitro egg activation

To stimulate egg production, drd1/FM7c and drd1/drd1 females were placed on yeast paste and mated with sibling males 3–5 days before dissection. Egg activation in vitro was performed using the method of Page and Orr-Weaver [49]. Stage 14 egg chambers were dissected in isolation buffer (55 mM NaOAc, 40 mM KOAc, 110 mM sucrose, 1.2 mM MgCl2, 1 mM CaCl2, 100 mM Hepes, pH 7.4 (NaOH)). Egg chambers were then incubated for 10 min in hypo-osmotic activating buffer (3.3 mM NaH2PO4, 16.6 mM KH2PO4, 10 mM NaCl, 50 mM KCl, 5% PEG 8000, 2 mM CaCl2, pH 6.4 (1:5 NaOH: KOH)) and then transferred into modified Zalokar’s buffer for 30 min (9 mM MgCl2, 10 mM MgSO4, 2.9 mM NaH2PO4 0.22 mM NaOAc, 5 mM glucose, 27 mM glutamic acid, 33 mM glycine, 2 mM malic acid, 7 mM CaCl2, pH 6.8 (1:1 NaOH: KOH)). To test for eggshell crosslinking, egg chambers were then incubated in 50% bleach for 5 min and scored as intact, leaky, or completely dissolved. In some experiments, hydrogen peroxide (0.006–0.06%) was included in both the activating and Zalokar’s buffer.

In a second series of experiments, the activating buffer incubation was omitted. Egg chambers were dissected and manually dechorionated in isolation buffer and then incubated for 30 min in Zalokar’s buffer containing 4.5% hydrogen peroxide and 1 mg/ml horseradish peroxidase (VWR, Radnor, PA) before bleaching as above.

Data analysis and statistics

Data were graphed and analyzed using GraphPad Prism v9 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, www.graphpad.com). A p value of <0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance. For the embryonic development and neutral red experiments, contingency tests were used to test for differences in binary outcomes (i.e. fertilized vs unfertilized or stained vs unstained). The Fisher exact test was used when comparing two genotypes and the Chi-square test was used when comparing more than two genotypes. For analysis of eggs laid per female (S2 Fig) and immunostaining intensity (Fig 5), each dataset was tested for normal distribution using the D’Agostino & Pearson normality test. For the egg-laying data, two datasets were not normally distributed (drdlwf model 2 and yeast-fed drd1), and so comparisons among genotypes and conditions were done using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparison tests. For the immunostaining data, the VM width datasets were both normally distributed and so were compared using a parametric t-test. The heterozygous VM intensity dataset was not normally distributed and so intensities were compared using a non-parametric Mann-Whitney test.

Results

Identification of the drd1 mutation

The experiments in this study utilize flies carrying the two most severe alleles of drd: drdlwf and drd1. The mutation in the latter of these alleles has not been molecularly characterized, although we previously reported that there were no alterations in the protein coding sequence [38]. Further sequencing of the final 5 introns and the ends of the first three large introns revealed six differences between drd1 and wild-type. One of these, a T to A transversion in the final intron, is predicted to create a strong ectopic splice acceptor site and result in the inclusion of an additional 10 nucleotides in the spliced transcript (S1 Fig) (www.fruitfly.org/seq_tools/splice.html) [50]. This aberrant splicing of the drd transcript in drd1 mutants was confirmed by PCR on whole-fly cDNA (S1 Fig). Virtual translation of the mutant transcript predicted that the final 76 amino acids of the Drd protein are replaced with a novel sequence of 45 amino acids in the drd1 mutant.

Sterility of drd mutant females

We have previously reported that females homozygous for severe drd alleles are sterile and rarely lay eggs, and their ovaries contain very few vitellogenic egg chambers [38]. We hypothesized that these phenotypes could be an effect of the starvation observed in drd mutant flies, as opposed to a direct phenotype of drd mutation. Consistent with this hypothesis, feeding females a high protein diet (yeast paste) stimulated egg-laying in a subset of flies. Yeast paste increased the percentage of drdlwf females, but not drd1 females, that laid eggs, and it increased by more than 30-fold the median number of eggs laid during their lifetime by those drd1 and drdlwf homozygous females that laid eggs (S2 Fig).

Despite the improvement in egg-laying, drd homozygous females fed with yeast paste remained sterile. As shown in Table 1, a significantly higher number of eggs laid by drd1 homozygotes were collapsed compared with eggs laid by heterozygote controls (p<0.0001, Fisher’s exact test). Of the turgid eggs, the large majority were fertilized, and the rate of fertilization was not affected by the mother’s genotype (p = 0.30, Fisher’s exact test). We did not quantify any other aspects of egg morphology, such as overall dimensions or size of the dorsal appendages. Virtually no fertilized eggs laid by homozygotes underwent gastrulation, in contrast to embryos laid by heterozygotes (p<0.0001, Fisher’s exact test). Thus, the sterility of drd mutant females appears to result from early embryonic arrest.

Table 1. Sterility of drd mutant females.

Maternal genotype (# of eggs) drd1/FM7c (164) drd1/ drd1 (293)
Collapsed (% of total) 0.6% 17.7%****
Unfertilized (% of turgid eggs) 7.5% 11.2%
Pre-gastrulation (% of fertilized eggs) 6.8% 99.0%****
Post-gastrulation (% of fertilized eggs) 93.2% 1.0%****

Table 1: Embryonic arrest in eggs laid by drd1 females. The second row indicates the percentage of all eggs that were collapsed or flaccid. The following row indicates the percentage of turgid eggs that were unfertilized (4 eggs from heterozygotes and 9 from homozygotes could not be scored and were excluded). The final two rows indicate the percentage of fertilized eggs that were scored as pre-gastrulation and post-gastrulation, respectively. Fisher’s exact test:

****: different from sibling controls, p<0.0001.

Expression of drd in the egg chamber

To determine whether drd expression was required in the germline or soma for female fertility, we used the FLP-FRT dominant female sterile technique to create females with a drd mutant germline [48]. This technique uses the X-linked dominant female sterile mutation ovoD1, which prevents formation of vitellogenic egg chambers. We created flies that were heterozygous for drdlwf and ovoD1, with the two mutations on different X chromosomes. Both X-chromosomes in these flies also contained a FRT recombination site, and the flies had a heat-shock inducible FLP recombinase. In the absence of heat-shock, all cells in these females will be heterozygous for drdlwf and ovoD1, and the females should be sterile. Heat-shock induced FLP expression during embryogenesis would cause mitotic recombination in some cells, resulting in cells that are homozygous for either drdlwf or ovoD1. Female fertility would only be observed with germline cells that had lost ovoD1 and were homozygous for drdlwf, and only if drd was not required in the germline. We observed that 15 of 17 heat-shocked females were fertile when crossed with wild-type males, while non-heat shocked controls were all sterile (n = 28), indicating that drd expression is not required in the female germline for fertility. The male progeny of these clones were short-lived (median lifespan of 4 days, n = 55), as would be expected for male progeny of a drdlwf homozygous germline.

Consistent with the germline clone analysis, driving a GFP reporter with a drd-GAL4 transgene resulted in labeling of ovarian follicle cells but not the germline (Figs 1 and S3). No reporter expression was observed in egg chambers prior to stage 10B (S3A and S3B Fig). At stage 10B, expression was observed in most follicle cells, although some appeared to be unlabeled (Fig 1A), and at later stages all follicle cells appeared to be labeled (Figs 1B and S3C). Labeling was observed in main body follicle cells covering the oocyte, in centripetal cells between the oocyte and nurse cells, and in stretch cells covering the nurse cells (Figs 1A and S3C and S3D). Control egg chambers lacking the drd-GAL4 driver did not show GFP expression (S3E and S3F Fig).

Fig 1. Expression of drd in ovarian follicle cells.

Fig 1

(A, B) GFP expression driven by the drd-GAL4 driver. (A´, B´) DAPI staining of cell nuclei. (A, A´) A stage 10B egg chamber, showing GFP labeling of most follicle cell nuclei. The posterior end of the egg chamber, containing the majority of follicle cells and the oocyte, is to the right, and the anterior end, containing the nurse cells and stretch follicle cells, is to the left. The asterisk in A´ indicates one of the large nurse cell nuclei, which are not labeled with GFP. Arrows in A indicate labeled stretch follicle cell nuclei, and arrow in A´ indicate unlabeled stretch follicle cell nuclei. (B, B´) A stage 14 egg chamber, showing GFP labeling of all follicle cell nuclei. The structures to the right of and overlapping with the egg chamber are respiratory tracheae, which also express drd. Images are maximum intensity projections of Z-stacks. Scale bar is 100 μm.

Abnormal eggshell development in drd mutant females

Because a significant number of eggs laid by drd mutants were collapsed and because drd expression was observed in the follicle cells and not the germline, we next examined the integrity of the eggshell, a structure synthesized by the somatic follicle cells. The integrity of the inner layer of the eggshell, the VM, was assayed by staining dechorionated eggs with neutral red, a dye that is normally excluded by the VM [24]. Virtually no eggs laid by drd1 and drdlwf heterozygotes lysed during dechorionation (1–3%) or were stained with neutral red (3–4%) (Fig 2). In contrast, eggs laid by homozygotes of either drd allele showed a high susceptibility to lysis during dechorionation (31–42%), and the large majority of surviving eggs were permeable to neutral red (71–90%). A small fraction of eggs (4–11%) were not dechorionated upon treatment with bleach and could not be assessed for dye exclusion, but the abundance of such eggs was not affected by the genotype of the mother (p = 0.19, Chi-square test).

Fig 2. Tests of eggshell assembly in eggs laid by drd homozygous and heterozygous females.

Fig 2

(A) fraction of eggs that lysed during bleach treatment. (B) fraction of eggs that were stained with neutral red after successful dechorionation. ****: significant difference between eggs laid by heterozygotes vs homozygotes, p<0.0001, Fisher’s exact test. Black solid bars: eggs laid by heterozygous control females; red striped bars: eggs laid by homozygous mutant females. The starting number of eggs was 139 from drdlwf/FM7a females, 115 from drdlwf/drdlwf, 225 from drd1/FM7c, 249 from drd1/drd1.

As a direct test of the incorporation of eggshell proteins into an insoluble cross-linked matrix, we performed Western blots on lysates of staged egg chambers and laid eggs. An antibody against the chorion protein Cp36 detected the expected pattern of staining in samples from drd1/FM7c heterozygous females (Fig 3) [13]. Soluble Cp36 protein was not detected at stage 10 of oogenesis, which is before chorion proteins such as Cp36 begin to be expressed, but Cp36 was detected in stage 14 lysates, when the protein is present in the chorion but has not yet been fully cross-linked. In lysates from eggs collected either 3 or 6 hr after deposition, Cp36 was not detectable, consistent with complete cross-linking of the protein into the insoluble chorion. The same pattern of staining was observed in lysates from eggs and egg chambers from drd1 homozygotes (Fig 3), indicating that crosslinking of the chorion, or at least of the specific protein Cp36, is not affected by mutation of drd (one biological replicate performed).

Fig 3. Western blot of the chorion protein Cp36 in drd mutant and control egg chambers and eggs.

Fig 3

Stage 10 and 14 egg chambers were dissected from drd1/drd1 mutant and drd1/FM7c heterozygous females, and eggs laid by these females were collected 0–3 and 0–6 hr after oviposition (lanes 3 and 7 and lanes 4 and 8). 4 eggs or egg chambers per lane, 1:5000 Cp36 primary antibody dilution.

In contrast to the chorion, crosslinking of VM proteins was clearly abnormal in eggs laid by drd mutant homozygotes. Fig 4A shows the pattern of staining observed in egg chambers and eggs from heterozygous controls, using an antibody raised against the VM protein Vm26Ab [13]. This antibody has been reported to cross-react with multiple VM proteins due to their high degree of sequence similarity [22, 51], and we typically observed multiple bands on Western blots. As expected, staining was observed in lysates from stage 10 egg chambers of heterozygous controls, when the VM proteins are not yet crosslinked, and from stage 14, when the VM proteins are crosslinked by disulfide bonds but are soluble in the presence of reducing agents. In laid eggs from heterozygotes, no soluble VM proteins were observed, consistent with the formation of nonreducible dityrosine bonds among VM proteins during ovulation and egg activation. In lysates of laid eggs from drd1 homozygotes, VM proteins were detected on the Western blot, indicating that these proteins are not fully crosslinked in the absence of drd expression. We observed solubility of VM proteins in laid eggs of drd1 homozygotes in seven Western blots representing five biological replicates. Only two of these experiments included multiple intervals between oviposition and egg collection, and the decrease in signal seen in Fig 4A with increasing time after oviposition (compare lanes 3 and 4) was not observed in the second such experiment. S4A Fig shows an overexposed blot indicating the presence of protein in the lane loaded with laid eggs from heterozygotes (lane 4).

Fig 4. Western blots against vitelline membrane proteins in drd mutant egg chambers and eggs.

Fig 4

(A) Western blot with an antibody raised against Vm26Ab of samples treated with reducing agents. Samples include stage 10 and 14 egg chambers dissected from drd1/drd1 mutant and drd1/FM7c heterozygous females, as well as eggs laid by these females that were collected 0–3 and 0–6 hr after oviposition. 4 eggs or egg chambers per lane, 1:10,000 primary antibody dilution. (B) Western blot from egg chambers solubilized in the absence of reducing agent and probed with an antibody against Vm26Ab. Samples include stage 10 and 14 egg chambers dissected from drd1/drd1 mutant and drd1/FM7c heterozygous females. 2 egg chambers per lane, 1:10,000 Vm26Ab primary antibody dilution.

To assay for the formation of disulfide bonds among VM proteins during oogenesis, lysates were prepared from stage 10 and 14 egg chambers in the absence of reducing agents. Mutation of drd did not alter the pattern of immunostaining observed under these conditions (Fig 4B). Soluble protein was detected at stage 10 but not at stage 14, indicating that VM proteins are cross-linked by reducible bonds during oogenesis in both drd homozygotes and heterozygotes (one biological replicate performed).

We performed immunostaining of stage 9 and 10A egg chambers against Vm26Ab to determine whether the appearance of the developing VM is altered in drd mutants (Fig 5A and 5B). We observed no significant effect of genotype on either the staining intensity (p = 0.14, Mann-Whitney test) or width (p = 0.54, t-test) of the VM (S5 Fig, n = 21 heterozygote and 22 homozygote). There were also no obvious morphological differences in the egg chambers between the two genotypes. However, drd1 homozygous egg chambers were slightly but significantly smaller than heterozygous controls. We used the size ratio of anterior-posterior length/lateral width of the oocyte within each egg chamber as a measure of progression through oogenesis, as this ratio increases during stages 9 and 10A (Fig 5C). Anterior-posterior length was significantly linearly correlated with the size ratio for each genotype (p<0.0001, F test). The slope of the relationship did not differ between the two genotypes (p = 0.88, F test) but the intercept did differ (p = 0.02, F test), corresponding to a decrease in size of homozygous oocytes of approximately 15%.

Follicle cell knockdown of drd recapitulates mutant phenotypes

Our finding that drd expression is required in the soma for female fertility, coupled with the known role of the somatic follicle cells in the synthesis of the eggshell, suggested that all of the drd mutant phenotypes related to fertility and eggshell assembly could be associated with the expression of drd in the follicle cells. To test this, we knocked down drd expression in the follicle cells, using two pan-follicle cell GAL4 drivers, CY2-GAL4 and T155-GAL4, and two inducible drd RNAi transgenes, drdGD3367 and drdGD15915, that we have previously shown to be effective at knocking down drd expression [44]. Females heterozygous for a GAL4 driver and an RNAi transgene (referred to as drd knockdown females) and sibling control females that lacked the RNAi transgene were mated with sibling males, and their eggs were scored for fertilization, embryonic development, eggshell integrity, and crosslinking. As shown in Table 2, a greater percentage of eggs from drd knockdown females were collapsed compared with sibling controls, and virtually all fertilized eggs from drd knockdown females were arrested pre-gastrulation, as was seen in mutant females (Fisher’s exact test, p<0.0001 for each genotype). The proportion of eggs laid by drd knockdown females that was fertilized was not significantly different than that of sibling controls for three of the four genotypes tested, with a small but significant effect on fertilization for the combination of the CY2-GAL4 driver and the drdGD3367 RNAi transgene. Despite the near-universal arrest of eggs from drd knockdown females early in oogenesis in this assay, we did occasionally observe larvae in vials of knockdown females carrying T155-GAL4 and either of the RNAi-transgenes, indicating that these females were not fully sterile. The drd knockdown females carrying the CY2-GAL4 driver, like drd mutant females, appeared to be completely sterile.

Table 2. Sterility of drd knockdown females.

Maternal genotype (# of eggs) w; CyO/+; T155-GAL4/+ (153) w; CyO/+; T155-GAL4/+ (221) w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (238) w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (163)
Collapsed (% of total) 0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6%
Unfertilized (% of turgid eggs) 3.4% 10.3% 2.2% 4.5%
Pre-gastrulation (% of fertilized eggs) 0.7% 1.0% 1.3% 2.7%
Maternal genotype (# of eggs) w; UAS-Dcr-2 drdGD3367/+; T155-GAL4/+ (188) w; drdGD15915 UAS-Dcr-2/+; T155-GAL4/+ (155) w; UAS-Dcr-2 drdGD3367/CY2-GAL4 (169) w; drdGD15915 UAS-Dcr-2/CY2-GAL4 (206)
Collapsed (% of total) 32.4%**** 43.9%**** 21.9%**** 24.3%****
Unfertilized (% of turgid eggs) 6.1% 10.0% 7.8%* 4.8%
Pre-gastrulation (% of fertilized eggs) 100%**** 98.6%**** 100%**** 96.4%****

Table 2: Embryonic arrest upon knockdown of drd expression in the follicle cells. Sibling control females (top four rows) and drd knockdown females (bottom four rows) were mated with sibling males, and eggs were collected and scored as in Table 1. The number of uncollapsed but unscorable eggs that were excluded from further analysis varied from 4–13 among each of the eight genotypes. Fisher’s exact test:

****: different from sibling controls, p<0.0001

*: p = 0.024.

To control for any disruption of oogenesis by overexpression of Dcr-2 in the follicle cells, we measured hatching rates of eggs laid by females in which UAS-Dcr-2 expression was driven by either CY2-GAL4 or T155-GAL4. In both cases, 98.4% of laid eggs successfully hatched (363/369 for CY2-GAL4 and 249/253 for T155-GAL4), indicating that the sterility shown in Table 2 is not due to overexpression of Dcr-2.

Tests of eggshell integrity by neutral red exclusion demonstrated that eggs laid by drd follicle cell knockdown females showed a similar defect to those laid by drd mutants. As shown in Fig 6, the percentage of eggs that lysed upon dechorionation was significantly different between knockdown and sibling control females for three of the four genotypes (Fig 6A). In contrast to the data from drd mutants, we observed a small but significant increase (6–12%) in the fraction of eggs from drd knockdown females that were successfully dechorionated relative to sibling controls when the drdGD3367 RNAi transgene was driven by either of the two GAL4 lines (Fig 6B). Importantly, we observed a significant and consistent increase in the proportion of eggs from drd knockdown females that were permeable to neutral red compared to those laid by sibling controls (Fig 6C).

Fig 6. Tests of eggshell assembly following drd knockdown.

Fig 6

Data from eggs laid by drd knockdown (striped orange bars for T155-GAL4 and striped green bars for CY2-GAL4) and sibling control (solid black bars) females. (A) Fraction of eggs that lysed during bleach treatment. (B) Fraction of eggs that were successfully dechorionated. (C) Fraction of eggs that were stained with neutral red after dechorionation. Significant difference between eggs laid by drd knockdown females and sibling controls by Fisher’s exact test are indicated: **** p<0.0001, *** p = 0.0006, ** p = 0.0016, * p = 0.015. The starting number of eggs per genotype, reading left to right on the graphs, was 224, 200, 225, 213, 206, 199, 195, 225.

Crosslinking of VM proteins in laid eggs and stage 14 egg chambers from knockdown and control females was assayed by Western blot with the antibody against Vm26Ab as described above. A representative blot is shown in Fig 7. The drd knockdown females carrying the CY2-GAL4 driver showed a phenotype identical to that of drd mutants: we consistently observed soluble VM proteins in both stage 14 egg chambers and laid eggs, while soluble VM proteins were only observed in the stage 14 chambers of sibling controls (three of three biological replicates with drdGD3367 and two of two with drdGD15915; three technical replicates were run for one set of samples for each RNAi transgene). In contrast, soluble VM proteins were detected in only some samples of eggs laid by drd knockdown females carrying the T155-GAL4 driver (two of four biological replicates with drdGD3367 and one of three with drdGD15915; two technical replicates were run for one set of drdGD3367 samples). S4B and S4C Fig shows overexposed blots indicating the presence of protein in the lane loaded with laid eggs from controls (B, lane 5, C, lanes 2 and 6).

Fig 7. Western blots against vitelline membrane proteins in drd follicle cell knockdown egg chambers and eggs.

Fig 7

Blots were probed with an antibody raised against Vm26Ab. Samples include stage 14 egg chambers dissected from, and eggs laid by, females in which the inducible drd RNAi transgene, drdGD3367, was driven by either the CY2-GAL4 or T155-GAL4 driver, or sibling controls lacking the RNAi transgene. Lanes are marked “st 14” for egg chambers and “e” for eggs. 2 eggs or egg chambers per lane, 1:25,000 Vm26Ab primary antibody dilution. Eggs were collected between 0–4.5 hr after oviposition.

Cross-linking of VM in isolated egg chambers

To determine whether the drd cross-linking defect persists in isolated egg chambers, we dissected stage 14 egg chambers and activated them in vitro by exposure to hypo-osmotic medium as previously reported [49]. VM cross-linking was assayed by then incubating the egg chambers in 50% bleach (Fig 8A). All egg chambers dissected from drd1/FM7c control females were successfully cross-linked following hypo-osmotic treatment (three independent trials). In contrast, all egg chambers dissected from drd1 homozygotes completely dissolved in bleach (three independent trials). Additional egg chambers were dissected from homozygotes and treated with 0.006–0.06% hydrogen peroxide during treatment with hypo-osmotic medium and for 30 min afterwards, and all these egg chambers also dissolved completely in bleach (Fig 8A, right bar, three independent trials). It is noteworthy that the drd mutant phenotype is more severe in egg chambers activated in vitro than in vivo, as most eggs laid by drd homozygous females remain intact upon treatment with bleach (see Fig 2 above).

Fig 8. Results of in vitro egg activation.

Fig 8

The figure indicates the number of egg chambers dissected from drd1/drd1 mutant females and drd1/FM7c heterozygous sibling controls that remained intact, became leaky, or dissolved in 50% bleach after treatment with hypo-osmotic medium (A) or hydrogen peroxide and horseradish peroxidase (B).

We then attempted to directly cross-link the VM of stage 14 egg chambers by treatment with hydrogen peroxide and peroxidase. Stage 14 egg chambers were dissected, manually dechorionated, and treated with peroxide/peroxidase without exposure to hypo-osmotic medium (Fig 8B). Egg chambers dissected from drd1/FM7c control females and treated with 1 mg/ml peroxidase and 4.5% hydrogen peroxide all survived a subsequent challenge with bleach (two independent trials). This cross-linking was not due to inadvertent activation of the egg chambers during dechorionation, as omitting the hydrogen peroxide from the incubation resulted in all egg chambers dissolving in bleach (one trial). Egg chambers from drd1 homozygotes treated with peroxide/peroxidase as above all dissolved in bleach (five independent trials).

Discussion

We have demonstrated that expression of drd in the ovarian follicle cells is both necessary and sufficient for female fertility and the progression of embryonic development beyond gastrulation. We first demonstrate that drd is expressed in ovarian follicle cells, but not the germline. A reporter that is expected to mimic the pattern of drd expression was expressed in the ovarian follicle cells and not the germline. Consistent with this, the result of our dominant female sterile experiment indicates that drd expression in the female germline is not required for fertility, while knockdown of drd expression specifically in the follicle cells recapitulates the mutant phenotype. These results are in keeping with those of Kim et al, who reported expression of drd in the follicle cells [52]. Furthermore, we have shown that drd expression in the follicle cells is required for proper development of the VM layer of the eggshell. In the absence of such expression, many eggs collapse, and the remaining eggs have a fragile VM that fails to act as a permeability barrier. Several major VM proteins—specifically those recognized by the antibody used in these studies—remain soluble in the presence of reducing agents, indicating that they have not been incorporated into the insoluble network of cross-linked proteins seen in the wild-type VM. The variable solubility phenotype observed with knockdown of drd with the T155-GAL4 driver is consistent with the fertility of some of these drd knockdown females and suggests that T155-GAL4 is not as effective as the CY2-GAL4 driver in knocking down drd expression. The difference in strength of these two driver lines has been reported previously [53].

The solubility of VM proteins in eggs laid by drd mutants indicates a defect in the peroxidase-mediated cross-linking that normally occurs upon egg activation while the egg is transiting down the oviduct. We have no evidence that egg activation itself is defective, as the eggs were able to complete the early stages of embryogenesis. Our data in this study don’t address the connection between defective VM cross-linking and embryonic arrest. Although it is possible that embryonic arrest is a drd phenotype independent of the defect in VM cross-linking, it has previously been reported that defective VM cross-linking is sufficient to cause early embryonic arrest. Females mutant for psd, which encodes a minor VM protein, also lay eggs with a VM cross-linking defect and that arrest pre-gastrulation and show a chromatin margination phenotype similar to that induced by anoxia [36]. Similarly, females with class I alleles of the eggshell component nudel lay eggs that exhibit VM cross-linking defects and, though extremely fragile, are fertilized and arrest early in embryogenesis [24, 54]. Thus, it is likely that defective VM cross-linking is also the direct cause of early developmental arrest in drd mutants. While our study did not find a role for drd in embryonic development, based on our experiments, such a role cannot be ruled out.

A published microarray study of ovarian gene expression has reported that drd expression in the egg chamber begins at stage 8 of oogenesis, peaks at stages 10A and 10B, and then declines [20]. The timing of drd expression therefore parallels the synthesis and secretion of VM proteins by the follicle cells. The pattern of reporter expression shown in Figs 1 and S3 is consistent with the microarray data. We observed GFP fluorescence starting at stage 10B and persisting through the rest of oogenesis; one would expect both a delay between the onset of GFP expression and significant accumulation in the follicle cell nuclei and persistence of the protein after gene expression is downregulated. The Drd protein is unlikely to be a component of the VM, as it is predicted to be an integral membrane protein and is reported to be localized to an intracellular compartment [38, 52]. Drd is also unlikely to be directly involved in the cross-linking process, which occurs at the end of oogenesis when drd expression is very low. Rather, our data suggest that the failure of VM proteins to become cross-linked in drd mutants could be due to an absence of some modification of the VM proteins in the follicle cells prior to secretion. The results of our final experiment are consistent with this hypothesis. Incubation of stage 14 egg chambers with peroxide and peroxidase resulted in cross-linking of the VM in egg chambers from wild-type but not drd mutant females. Thus, VM proteins synthesized and secreted from drd mutant follicle cells appear to be poor substrates for peroxidase-mediated cross-linking for reasons still to be determined.

One interesting finding from our final experiment is that egg chambers from drd mutant females dissolve immediately in bleach after activation in vitro with hypo-osmotic medium. In contrast, eggs laid by drd mutant females mainly survive bleaching, even though their VMs are permeable to neutral red. The contrast between these two results indicates that hypo-osmotic treatment in vitro does not fully recapitulate the activation process in vivo even though the two processes appear to give identical results in wild-type flies [49]. Additional study of oogenesis in drd mutant females could prove to be useful for identifying additional factors required for eggshell maturation during ovulation.

In addition to characterizing the effect of drd mutations on oogenesis, we have identified the molecular defect in the severe drd1 allele as a point mutation in the final intron that disrupts the normal splicing of exons 8 and 9. The aberrant splicing replaces the final 76 residues of the 827 amino acid Drd protein with a novel sequence. drd1 has previously been shown to cause the same short adult lifespan, female sterility, and absence of a peritrophic matrix as drdlwf, a nonsense mutation that eliminates all but the first 180 amino acids [38, 40]. Thus, our finding highlights the importance of the C-terminal of Drd in protein function, stability, or localization. In contrast, the drdW3 and In(1)drdx1 alleles, which eliminate the first exon and at least the first 125 amino acids, are phenotypically less severe [38].

The biochemical function of the Drd protein remains unknown. However, this study highlights two themes that are emerging from our studies of this gene. First, drd expression appears to be required in a number of different epithelial tissues, including the ovarian follicle cells for oogenesis, the anterior midgut for digestive function, and the respiratory tracheae for brain integrity. Second, drd expression is required for the formation of extracellular barrier structures, as drd mutants show defects both in the eggshell and in the peritrophic matrix of the midgut. Given the amount of information known about eggshell formation, the ovary is an excellent system for further studies of drd function.

Supporting information

S1 File. Protocol for neutral red permeability assay.

(PDF)

S2 File. Raw numerical data.

The six tabs in the spreadsheet contain underlying data for S2 and S5 Figs and Tables 1 and 2, Figs 2, 5 and 6, respectively.

(XLSX)

S1 Fig. Mutation in the drd1 allele.

(A) Genomic DNA sequences. Upper sequence shows the wild-type sequence of the final five bases of exon 8 (bold), all of intron 8, and the first five bases of exon 9 (bold). The lower sequence shows the same region in drd1, with the single base change (green, underlined) and the new start of exon 9 (bold). (B) cDNA sequences. Upper sequence shows the wild-type sequence of cDNA from the region of the exon 8/9 junction. The splicing site is indicated in red. The lower sequence shows the same region in drd1, with the new splice junction shown in red and the added 10 bases in bold.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Egg-laying by drd mutant females.

(A) Fraction of females in each condition that laid any eggs during their lifetime. Because some non yeast-fed females were assayed in groups of 2–3, the data were analyzed with two different assumptions regarding the distribution of egg-laying (see methods). Brackets indicate the effect of yeast feeding (two-sided Fisher’s exact test). (B) Number of eggs laid per female, omitting data from those females that laid no eggs. Brackets indicate the effect of yeast feeding (Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post-hoc multiple comparisons test). Blue: drdlwf females; Red: drd1 females. n = 67 drdlwf females, 21 yeast-fed drdlwf, 48 drd1, 24 yeast-fed drd1.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Expression of drd in ovarian follicle cells.

(A-F) GFP expression driven by the drd-GAL4 driver. (A´-F´) DAPI staining of cell nuclei, with nurse cell nuclei in the anterior of each egg chamber indicated with asterisks. (A, A´) A stage 9 egg chamber, showing no GFP labeling. (B, B´) A stage 10A egg chamber, showing no GFP labeling. (C, C´) A stage 11 egg chamber, showing labeled follicle cells. (D, D´) A stage 10B egg chamber showing labeled follicle cells. Labeled stretch and centripetal follicle cells in C and D are indicated with arrowheads and arrows, respectively. (E, E´, F, F´) Control stage 10B (E, E´) and stage 12 (F, F´) egg chambers lacking the drd-GAL4 transgene. A-D are single confocal images, and E-F are maximum intensity projections of Z-stacks. Scale bar is 100 μm.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Overexposed Western blots showing signals in “blank” lanes.

(A) Stage 10 and 14 egg chambers dissected from drd1/FM7c heterozygous and drd1/drd1 mutant females, as well as eggs (e) laid by these females that were collected 0–5 hr after oviposition. 2 eggs or egg chambers per lane (except mutant st 10, 1 egg chamber), 1:25,000 primary antibody dilution. (B) Laid eggs collected 0–4.5 hr after oviposition. Lane 1: w; CyO/+; T155-GAL4/+, (sibling controls of lane 2); Lane 2: w; UAS-Dcr-2 drdGD3367/+; T155-GAL4/+; Lane 3: w; CyO/+; T155-GAL4/+ (sibling controls of lane 4); Lane 4: w; drdGD15915 UAS-Dcr-2/+; T155-GAL4/+; Lane 5: w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (sibling controls of lane 6); Lane 6: w; UAS-Dcr-2 drdGD3367/CY2-GAL4; Lane 7: w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (sibling controls of lane 8); Lane 8: w; drdGD15915 UAS-Dcr-2/CY2-GAL4. 5 eggs per lane, 1:10,000 primary antibody dilution. (C) Stage 14 egg chambers and laid eggs collected 0–3.5 h after oviposition. Lanes 1–2: w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (sibling control of lanes 3–4); Lanes 3–4: w; drdGD15915 UAS-Dcr-2/CY2-GAL4; Lanes 5–6: w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (sibling control of lanes 7–8); Lanes 7–8: w; UAS-Dcr-2 drdGD3367/CY2-GAL4. Left gel, 2 eggs or egg chambers per lane; right gel, 1 egg or egg chamber per lane, 1:25,000 primary antibody dilution. Asterisks indicate signals in lanes containing laid eggs from control females.

(PDF)

S5 Fig. VM staining intensity and width.

Black open circles: heterozygous controls; red closed circles: drd1 homozygotes. (A) Plot of VM intensity measurements as a function of oocyte size ratio (A-P length/lateral width). There is no significant linear correlation between VM intensity and size ratio for either heterozygotes (p = 0.13) or homozygotes (p = 0.19, F test). (B) Comparison of VM intensity measurements between heterozygotes and homozygotes. Horizontal bars represent the means. The p-value is from a Mann-Whitney test comparing the two genotypes. (C) Plot of VM width measurements as a function of oocyte size ratio (A-P length/lateral width). There is no significant linear correlation between VM width and size ratio for either heterozygotes (p = 0.40) or homozygotes (p = 0.13, F test). (D) Comparison of VM width measurements between heterozygotes and homozygotes. Horizontal bars represent the means. The p-value is from a t-test comparing the two genotypes. n = 21 heterozygotes and 22 homozygotes.

(PDF)

S1 Raw images. Images of Western blots used in Figs 3, 4, and 7.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Celeste Berg for the CY2-GAL4 stock, Drs. Gail Waring and Anita Manogaran for antibodies and helpful discussions, and Anika Benske for technical assistance. Stocks obtained from the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (NIH P40OD018537) and the Vienna Drosophila Resource Center were used in this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files or are held in a public repository at https://epublications.marquette.edu/sheahan_2023/

Funding Statement

This work was supported by: National Institutes of Health grant 1R15 GM080682, National Science Foundation grant IOS-1355087, and Marquette University (EMB). Marquette University Honors Program (TDS and LEK). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Yue B. Biology of the extracellular matrix. J Glaucoma. 2014;23: S20–S23. doi: 10.1097/ijg.0000000000000108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Broadie K, Baumgartner S, Prokop A. Extracellular matrix and its receptors in Drosophila neural development. Dev Neurobiol. 2011;71: 1102–1130. doi: 10.1002/dneu.20935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Walma DAC, Yamada KM. The extracellular matrix in development. Development. 2020;147: dev175596. doi: 10.1242/dev.175596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Waring GL. Morphogenesis of the eggshells in Drosophila. Int Rev Cytol. 2000;198: 67–108. doi: 10.1016/s0074-7696(00)98003-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Merkle JA, Wittes J, Schüpbach T. Signaling between somatic follicle cells and the germline patterns the egg and embryo of Drosophila. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2019;140: 55–86. doi: 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2019.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Narasimha S, Nagornov KO, Menin L, Mucciolo A, Rohwedder A, Humbel BM, et al. Drosophila melanogaster cloak their eggs with pheromones, which prevents cannibalism. PLoS Biol. 2019;17: e2006012. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Stein DS, Stevens LM. Maternal control of the Drosophila dorsal–ventral body axis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Dev Biol. 2014;3: 301–330. doi: 10.1002/wdev.138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Horne‐Badovinac S, Bilder D. Mass transit: Epithelial morphogenesis in the Drosophila egg chamber. Dev Dyn. 2005;232: 559–574. doi: 10.1002/dvdy.20286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wu X, Tanwar PS, Raftery LA. Drosophila follicle cells: Morphogenesis in an eggshell. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2008;19: 271–282. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2008.01.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lebo DPV, McCall K. Murder on the Ovarian Express: A Tale of Non-Autonomous Cell Death in the Drosophila Ovary. Cells. 2021;10: 1454. doi: 10.3390/cells10061454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Deady LD, Shen W, Mosure SA, Spradling AC, Sun J. Matrix metalloproteinase 2 is required for ovulation and corpus luteum formation in Drosophila. PLoS genetics. 2015;11: e1004989. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fakhouri M, Elalayli M, Sherling D, Hall JD, Miller E, Sun X, et al. Minor proteins and enzymes of the Drosophila eggshell matrix. Dev Biol. 2006;293: 127–141. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.01.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pascucci T, Perrino J, Mahowald AP, Waring GL. Eggshell assembly in Drosophila: processing and localization of vitelline membrane and chorion proteins. Dev Biol. 1996;177: 590–598. doi: 10.1006/dbio.1996.0188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fargnoli J, Waring GL. Identification of vitelline membrane proteins in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Biol. 1982;92: 306–314. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(82)90177-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Andrenacci D, Cernilogar FM, Taddei C, Rotoli D, Cavaliere V, Graziani F, et al. Specific domains drive VM32E protein distribution and integration in Drosophila eggshell layers. J Cell Sci. 2001;114: 2819–2829. doi: 10.1242/jcs.114.15.2819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Alatortsev VE. New genes for vitelline membrane proteins in Drosophila. Mol Biol. 2006;40: 330–332. doi: 10.1134/s002689330602021x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jiménez G, González-Reyes A, Casanova J. Cell surface proteins Nasrat and Polehole stabilize the Torso-like extracellular determinant in Drosophila oogenesis. Gene Dev. 2002;16: 913–918. doi: 10.1101/gad.223902 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ventura G, Furriols M, Martín N, Barbosa V, Casanova J. closca, a new gene required for both Torso RTK activation and vitelline membrane integrity. Germline proteins contribute to Drosophila eggshell composition. Dev Biol. 2010;344: 224–232. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Furriols M, Casanova J. Germline and somatic vitelline proteins colocalize in aggregates in the follicular epithelium of Drosophila ovaries. Fly. 2014;8: 113–119. doi: 10.4161/fly.29133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tootle TL, Williams D, Hubb A, Frederick R, Spradling A. Drosophila eggshell production: identification of new genes and coordination by Pxt. PLoS One. 2011;6: e19943. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cavaliere V, Bernardi F, Romani P, Duchi S, Gargiulo G. Building up the Drosophila eggshell: First of all the eggshell genes must be transcribed. Dev Dyn. 2008;237: 2061–2072. doi: 10.1002/dvdy.21625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Manogaran A, Waring GL. The N-terminal prodomain of sV23 is essential for the assembly of a functional vitelline membrane network in Drosophila. Dev Biol. 2004;270: 261–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2004.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Petri WH, Wyman AR, Kafatos FC. Specific protein synthesis in cellular differentiation III. The eggshell proteins of Drosophila melanogaster and their program of synthesis. Dev Biol. 1976;49: 185–199. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(76)90266-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.LeMosy EK, Hashimoto C. The Nudel protease of Drosophila is required for eggshell biogenesis in addition to embryonic patterning. Dev Biol. 2000;217: 352–361. doi: 10.1006/dbio.1999.9562 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Heifetz Y, Yu J, Wolfner MF. Ovulation triggers activation of Drosophila oocytes. Dev Biol. 2001;234: 416–424. doi: 10.1006/dbio.2001.0246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mindrinos MN, Petri WH, Galanopoulos VK, Lombard MF, Margaritis LH. Crosslinking of the Drosophila chorion involves a peroxidase. Wilhelm Roux Arch Dev Biol. 1980;189: 187–196. doi: 10.1007/BF00868677 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Heinecke JW. Tyrosyl radical production by myeloperoxidase: a phagocyte pathway for lipid peroxidation and dityrosine cross-linking of proteins. Toxicology. 2002;177: 11–22. doi: 10.1016/s0300-483x(02)00192-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hall HG. Hardening of the sea urchin fertilization envelope by peroxidase-catalyzed phenolic coupling of tyrosines. Cell. 1978;15: 343–355. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(78)90003-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Han Q, Li G, Li J. Purification and characterization of chorion peroxidase from Aedes aegypti eggs. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2000;378: 107–115. doi: 10.1006/abbi.2000.1821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bauer BJ, Waring GL. 7C female sterile mutants fail to accumulate early eggshell proteins necessary for later chorion morphogenesis in Drosophila. Dev Biol. 1987;121: 349–358. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(87)90171-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hawley RJ, Waring GL. Cloning and analysis of the dec-1 female-sterile locus, a gene required for proper assembly of the Drosophila eggshell. Gene Dev. 1988;2: 341–349. doi: 10.1101/gad.2.3.341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Savant SS, Waring GL. Molecular analysis and rescue of a vitelline membrane mutant in Drosophila. Dev Biol. 1989;135: 43–52. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(89)90156-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.D’Alterio C, Tran DDD, Yeung MWYA, Hwang MSH, Li MA, Arana CJ, et al. Drosophila melanogaster Cad99C, the orthologue of human Usher cadherin PCDH15, regulates the length of microvilli. J Cell Biol. 2005;171: 549–58. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200507072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Schlichting K, Wilsch-Bräuninger M, Demontis F, Dahmann C. Cadherin Cad99C is required for normal microvilli morphology in Drosophila follicle cells. J Cell Sci. 2006;119: 1184–95. doi: 10.1242/jcs.02831 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Claycomb JM, Benasutti M, Bosco G, Fenger DD, Orr-Weaver TL. Gene amplification as a developmental strategy: isolation of two developmental amplicons in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2004;6: 145–55. doi: 10.1016/s1534-5807(03)00398-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Elalayli M, Hall JD, Fakhouri M, Neiswender H, Ellison TT, Han Z, et al. Palisade is required in the Drosophila ovary for assembly and function of the protective vitelline membrane. Dev Biol. 2008;319: 359–369. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2008.04.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cernilogar FM, Fabbri F, Andrenacci D, Taddei C, Gargiulo G. Drosophila vitelline membrane cross-linking requires the fs(1)Nasrat, fs(1)polehole and chorion genes activities. Dev Genes Evol. 2001;211: 573–580. doi: 10.1007/s00427-001-0192-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Blumenthal EM. Cloning of the neurodegeneration gene drop-dead and characterization of additional phenotypes of its mutation. Fly. 2008;2: 180–8. doi: 10.4161/fly.6546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Peller CR, Bacon EM, Bucheger JA, Blumenthal EM. Defective gut function in drop-dead mutant Drosophila. J Insect Physiol. 2009;55: 834–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2009.05.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Conway S, Sansone CL, Benske A, Kentala K, Billen J, Broeck JV, et al. Pleiotropic and novel phenotypes in the Drosophila gut caused by mutation of drop-dead. J Insect Physiol. 2018;105: 76–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2018.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sansone CL, Blumenthal EM. Neurodegeneration in drop-dead mutant Drosophila melanogaster is associated with the respiratory system but not with hypoxia. PLoS One. 2013;8: e68032. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Buchanan RL, Benzer S. Defective glia in the Drosophila brain degeneration mutant drop-dead. Neuron. 1993;10: 839–850. doi: 10.1016/0896-6273(93)90200-b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Benzer S. From the gene to behavior. JAMA. 1971;218: 1015–1022. doi: 10.1001/jama.1971.03190200047010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Sansone CL, Blumenthal EM. Developmental expression of drop-dead is required for early adult survival and normal body mass in Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2012;42: 690–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2012.06.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dietzl G, Chen D, Schnorrer F, Su K-C, Barinova Y, Fellner M, et al. A genome-wide transgenic RNAi library for conditional gene inactivation in Drosophila. Nature. 2007;448: 151–156. doi: 10.1038/nature05954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wieschaus E, Nusslein-Volhard C. Looking at embryos. In: Roberts DB, editor. Drosophila: a practical approach. Oxford: IRL Press; 1986. pp. 199–227. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Chou T, Perrimon N. The autosomal FLP-DFS technique for generating germline mosaics in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1996;144: 1673–1679. doi: 10.1093/genetics/144.4.1673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chou TB, Perrimon N. Use of a yeast site-specific recombinase to produce female germline chimeras in Drosophila. Genetics. 1992;131: 643–653. doi: 10.1093/genetics/131.3.643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Page AW, Orr-Weaver TL. Activation of the meiotic divisions in Drosophila oocytes. Dev Biol. 1997;183: 195–207. doi: 10.1006/dbio.1997.8506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Reese MG, Eeckman FH, Kulp D, Haussler D. Improved Splice Site Detection in Genie. J Comput Biol. 1997;4: 311–323. doi: 10.1089/cmb.1997.4.311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wu T, Manogaran AL, Beauchamp JM, Waring GL. Drosophila vitelline membrane assembly: A critical role for an evolutionarily conserved cysteine in the “VM domain” of sV23. Dev Biol. 2010;347: 360–368. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.08.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kim JY, Jang W, Lee HW, Park E, Kim C. Neurodegeneration of Drosophila drop-dead mutants is associated with hypoxia in the brain. Genes Brain Behav. 2012;11: 177–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2011.00743.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Queenan AM, Ghabrial A, Schüpbach T. Ectopic activation of torpedo/Egfr, a Drosophila receptor tyrosine kinase, dorsalizes both the eggshell and the embryo. Development. 1997;124: 3871–3880. doi: 10.1242/dev.124.19.3871 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hong CC, Hashimoto C. The maternal Nudel protein of Drosophila has two distinct roles important for embryogenesis. Genetics. 1996;143: 1653–1661. doi: 10.1093/genetics/143.4.1653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Shubha Govind

5 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-14466The Drosophila drop-dead gene is required for eggshell integrityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blumenthal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 20 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shubha Govind, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

The Reviewers found this manuscript to contain novel findings, overall interesting, and pertinent to the field. Their reviews are detailed, with excellent feedback on experimental design, methods (including statistics), and data presentation. Addressing them all clearly will help improve the quality of this manuscript considerably.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study, “Drosophila drop-dead gene is required for eggshell integrity” by Sheahan and colleagues, investigates the previously observed reduction in egg-laying of drop-dead (drd) mutant females. This phenotype was previously hypothesized to be due to starvation of drd mutant females because of defects in the gut epithelium. Upon feeding with a more nutritious diet (wet yeast), the drd females laid more eggs, but the researchers observed defects in the eggshell integrity of those eggs, as well as a reduced hatching rate.

The experiments performed by Sheahan et al., are basic, but sufficient for their story. In addition, the results reported will be of interest to both the Drosophila oogenesis community of scientists as well as those interested in the function of drd, which is yet unknown. Although the results included in this study does not elucidate the molecular role of drd in epithelia, the authors provide a better understanding of this gene’s role in Drosophila tissues. To be a more solid study, however, there are important controls that are missing throughout the study. These and other comments are outlined below.

Major comments:

1. The Introduction is missing a more complete explanation of the biology of the somatic follicle cells. The authors cite several helpful and comprehensive reviews, but a brief description of the follicle cells (beyond what is included in the first paragraph) will better provide readers of a broader audience the foundation of the organization and life cycle of the follicle cells. For example, it seems important to mention that the follicle cells form a polarized, mono-layered epithelium that lines the germline, with the apical domain facing the germline. This is relevant because it is at this interface that the vitelline membrane and chorion proteins are secreted and form, and that the follicle cells undergo cell death in stage 14 egg chambers.

2. In the Methods, the authors do not explain some of the scoring determinants and/or assays that were used throughout the study (nor do they explain this in the Results text). See major comments #3 and 4 below. Both analyses need to be better described in the Methods (the reference provided is not available on PubMed or Google Scholar).

3. Specifically, how were eggs determined to be fertilized or not? One widely used approach to do this is to mate drd mutant and knockdown females with a transgenic line (available from BDSC) expressing don juan fused to GFP (dj-GFP). In this line, the sperm tails are easily visible in the egg under a fluorescent dissecting microscope to confirm that fertilization has occurred.

4. Similarly, it is not clear how the authors determined when embryos arrested. They made the distinction of categorizing pre-gastrula vs. post-gastrula (although how they did this was not stated), but this is a very broad distinction. The data presented shows that 99% of embryos produced from drd mutant females arrest prior to gastrulation. These data suggest that there is a maternal-effect on embryogenesis; this observation will be of interest to the developmental biology community, although an additional experiment is necessary to better clarify the role of drd prior to zygotic genome activation just prior to gastrulation. It would be of great interest to determine in which cell cycle(s) the embryos arrest. Embryos collected from drd mutant and/or RNAi knockdown females can be collected (0-3h post egg-laying), aged for ∼3 hours, fixed, and stained for DNA (microtubule staining is helpful as well) to characterize the stage in which the embryos arrest. A presumed maternal-effect lethality would indicate the importance of drd in the syncytial blastoderm in which zygotic genome activation is not yet activated. If the authors are able to make this conclusion based on results that support this hypothesis, this would greatly improve the impact and interest of this work. This could then bolster the claim made in the Discussion (lines 532-533) regarding the developmental arrest hypothesized to occur in these embryos.

5. It was confusing as to why the authors used the drd1 allele solely and did not use the similarly severe allele drdlwf. It would be helpful confirmation to show that the phenotypes reported are consistent across both severe drd alleles, especially since they also included RNAi data to confirm the specificity of the phenotypes reported. In the Discussion (line 567), the authors stat that the drd1 mutant is phenotypically identical to drdlwf, but these experiments were not shown (and perhaps not performed) for the phentoypes assessed in this study. This claim is overstated if those experiments are not included.

6. There are many different statistical tests used throughout this study and they are stated in the text and figure legends but are not explained in the Methods. These should be better explained in the Methods section to clarify for readers why they used different statistical tests for different analyses.

7. The authors evaluated the timing of drd expression in oogenesis but did not show stages prior to drd expression (i.e., previtellogenic stages prior to stage 10). These data should be included to support the expression data referenced from Flybase. Did they indeed observe that Drd is not observed prior to stage 10B? Also, in order for someone to agree with the stages presented in Figure 1, the authors should include DNA staining merged and in separate channels. The GFP visualization alone is not clear enough to determine staging.

8. In Figure 1, it is difficult to discern the outlines of the egg chambers because only the GFP channel is shown. In addition to my suggestion above to include DNA staining, it would be very helpful if the authors presented the egg chambers as individual channels with callout letters instead of all in the same panel. Adding light microscope images or an outline of the egg chambers would be necessary (especially if DNA staining is not included as suggested).

9. This is also true for Figure S3 in which panel B shows an empty field. This is not meaningful if DNA staining or a light microscope image of what is present in the field of view is not included.

10. Is Drd present in ALL follicle cell (FCs) populations? For example, is Drd-GFP detected in centripetal cells, stretch cells, and in the epithelial monolayer, or is only present in a subset of FCs? Drd-GFP is present in the monolayer on the surface of the egg chamber, as shown in Figure 1, but the focal plane presented in Figure 1 only shows the surface of the egg chamber. Perhaps stretch cells also contain GFP but it’s difficult to say from the stage 10 egg chambers in Figure 1 what the GFP positive cells at the anterior are. Egg chambers shown as a longitudinal section through the middle of the egg chamber would help to elucidate the subpopulations of follicle cells in which Drd-GFP is present. This would be important to bolster their claims in the Discussion (paragraph starting on line 534).

11. None of the Western blots presented in the paper include loading controls. It is very difficult to fully believe the conclusions made, especially regarding the lack of protein detected in laid eggs, if a loading control is not included. I do not doubt that the results presented are real, but if these experiments are not well-controlled by showing that the same amount of protein is loaded per lane, the authors cannot make the conclusions presented for those figures.

12. Line 358: The authors remark that the decreased signal observed in Figure 4A for eggs laid was not consistent across replicates, but this was very striking. Why did the authors present data that was not representative? The decrease was so striking that I was going to suggest that the authors quantify the data but was surprised that they stated inconsistency of this decrease. This suggested a greater necessity to quantify these data. Quantification could be completed using a digital imager and software, or even simply stating how many replicates of the experiment showed the decrease would be perhaps sufficient.

13. In the data presented in Figure 5C, it was not clear to me if the egg chambers measured were egg chambers (prior to stage 14) or mature oocytes (stage 14). The authors use “egg chambers” and “oocytes” interchangeably in the text. This needs to be better clarified.

14. The authors used two follicle cell drivers for their RNAi knockdown experiments: CY-GAL4 and T155-GAL4. Both drivers are expressed in the follicle cells around stage 10, although perhaps at different levels, resulting in varying phenotypic difference. While the varying expressing has been reported before for those drivers, it would be very helpful if the authors also used a follicle cell driver that expresses earlier in oogenesis, such as traffic jam-GAL4 (tj-GAL4) to assess knockdown phenotype, which might be more robust under those conditions.

15. It would be extremely helpful for readers if the authors labeled the graphs in Figure 6 differently so that they’re easier to read. The genotypes are very long and for non-geneticists, this will be letter soup. Adding horizontal lines to the top of the graphs (as in the Western blot shown in Figure 7) would greatly help a reader visualize which genotypes are which. For example, a horizontal bar over the first 4 bars would indicate T155-GAL4 and then under that, 2 shorter horizontal lines above the pairs of bars (1 and 2 and then 3 and 4) can be used to indicate the RNAi lines used. Then in the axes for the x-axis, the authors can add “control” or “drd RNAi knockdown” as appropriate.

Minor comments:

1. It would be interesting to the field if the authors could comment about the formation of other important structures in the mature egg that form during oogenesis and may be impacted by proper deposition/development of the eggshell. Do the micropyles and dorsal appendages form properly? Experimental results showing and quantifying eggshell patterning defects might shed light on the precise defects that are found in eggs produced by drd mutant or knockdown females. In addition, results from these experiments might explain some of the phenotypes addressed earlier, such as the reported reduction of fertilized eggs produced by drd mutant or knockdown females.

2. The authors should add primary antibody dilutions used for Western blot analysis to the Methods.

3. The authors should include the camera used for confocal microscopy to the Methods.

4. Line 197: There is a grammatical error in this line (eclosion “and” placed on yeast paste).

5. It would have been better if the authors had used drd/+ controls for their experiments, so if the authors will be repeating experiments, it is suggested that they include this instead of drd/balancer.

6. In lines 262-264, the authors describe (albeit very briefly) how the data presented in Table 1 was collected. This information should be in the Methods, not the Results. Also, see my comment above about the need for more precise and informative methods regarding these assays.

7. In the Figures containing graphs, the authors follow a color scheme for the genotypes shown, but the figure legends do not provide a key for the colors used.

8. In the Figures containing graphs, it would be helpful if the authors include the precise “n” for each bar. The figure legends report a range of the number of samples included, but it would be more precise to include the exact “n” for each.

9. I was curious as to why the authors used life span to determine that progeny from females in which germline clones were induced were of the expected genotype. This seems like a good secondary confirmation, but simply sequencing the progeny would be more precise and a better primary confirmation of genotype. Even if the offspring are heterozygous, double peaks should be apparent by sequencing to confirm inheritance of maternal drd1.

10. The authors mention the number of eggs or egg chambers loaded per lane for the Western blots presented in their data; this information should be included in the Methods and not just in the associated figure legends.

11. Figure legend 4 (lines 362-365): This sentence read awkwardly and should be clarified.

12. Figure 5C: Statistical information is missing from the figure legend.

13. Throughout the description of the drd RNAi knockdown phenotypes, the authors simply refer to the drd knockdown females as “knockdown females”. It would be better if the authors add “drd” before this phrase to be more precise.

14. Line 419: the authors refer to one combination of driver and RNAi transgene to produce a specific effect, but they don’t state that in the text.

15. Table 2 should be reordered to show the control genotypes/phenotypes at the top and the drd RNAi knockdown genotypes/phenotypes in the 2nd row.

16. There is a concern in the fly community that UAS-Dcr2 presents phenotypes on its own during oogenesis. It would be helpful if the authors used a control that expressed UAS-Dcr2 under GAL4 control instead of GAL4-only controls.

17. When describing Figure 6 in the text, the authors state that there is a small, but significant increase in the fraction of eggs from drd knockdown females (lines 441-444), but this was only observed for specific combinations of GAL4 and UAS-RNAi lines. This should be better clarified in the text.

18. When describing the results of Figure 7, the authors report the number of biological replicates that showed the reported results. It was not clear if the authors were reporting that 3 of 3 replicates of GD3367 and 2 of 2 GD15915 displayed the phenhotye (lines 460-461). This should be clarified. Similarly, it would be a bit easier to follow if the authors phrased the data at the end of the same paragraph as 2 out of 4 (instead of 2/4) and 1 out of 3 (instead of 1/3).

19. In the legend for Figure 8, the authors should state that both drd mutant and control siblings were analyzed in the assay shown (and include those genotypes).

20. The authors are inconsistent in some of their uses of hyphenation or not throughout the text and figures. For example, sometimes “pre-gastrulation” or “post-gastrulation” are used, and other times both appear without a hyphen. This is also true for “hypo-osmotic”. It is suggested that the authors remain consistent in these terms.

21. The last sentence of the first paragraph on page 26 (lines 560-562) is confusingly written. Perhaps the authors mean to say that the study of Drd could prove to be useful for identifying additional factors needed for eggshell maturation? This should be clarified.

22. The authors should add callout letters to Figure 4.

23. In Figure 4, I was confused why 3h and 6h were so close together for the control lanes at the end of panel A. It seems the gel was cropped too closely and the spacing is not the same as for the mutant lanes.

24. In Figure 6, CY2-GAL4 should be consistently capitalized. In the 5th x-axis label for all panels (A-C), CY2-GAL4 is written as “Cy2-GAL4”.

25. Line 423: Change to “CY2-GAL4” (instead of CY-GAL4).

Reviewer #2: Sheahan et al.

The well-written manuscript presents important insight into the function of Dropdead in Drosophila. Loss of Dropdead is known to cause female sterility, but where it is required for fertility and how it impacts fertility was unknown. Taking advantage of the robust genetic tools of Drosophila, in combination with biochemical assessments, the study uncovers that Dropdead is required in the somatic follicle cells during mid to late oogenesis. There Dropdead is required for the proper crosslinking of the vitelline membrane, a key component of the eggshell. The study is well controlled and most phenotypes and changes are quantitatively assessed. A few minor edits will improve the paper, making it easier for a non-expert to fully appreciate the findings.

Minor issues:

1. More details are needed in some of the methods:

a. Visualization of drd expression – how are the egg chambers mounted?

b. Composition of 5X SDS-PAGE loading buffer

c. What primaries are used in the western blots and at what concentrations? I understand this is in the figure legends, but it should also be in the methods.

d. In immunostaining – how were the intensity measurements normalized?

2. Please add data mentioned but not shown.

a. RT-PCR (line 246)

b. Vm26Ab intensity data should be provided as graphs

3. The results section on the germline clones needs to be expanded to fully explain the clonal system being used. Many Drosophilists think of germline clones as making mosaic ovaries, but you are using the ovoD system. You need to explain how the system works and why the non-heat shock controls are sterile. It will be important to add some clarity on this method to the discussion as well

4. Expansion of drd-GAL4 GFP expression data – it would be very helpful for whole ovarioles to be shown (or more stages) to illustrate when it is not present and when it is. Also it appears that only some of the stretch follicle cells express it – is this true?

5. Add n’s to all graphs that don’t have them (Fig. 2, Fig 6

6. There are no loading controls for the western blots. Please either provide them or better explain why they are not needed.

7. Figure 3 legend text does not state what antibody is used.

8. Line 347: As expected,…. – it is unclear what sample(s) this sentence is referring to.

9. The order of the data presented in Figure 6 does not match the order discussed in the results.

10. Figure 6 title does not cover everything presented in the figure.

11. Figure 8 has very small sample sizes. It would be more convincing with larger numbers.

12. Lines 483-484 – missing figure panel callout or data not shown?

13. Typos:

a. Line 197: eclosion on placed on yeast paste with sibling males for two days

b. Line 239: The mutation in the latter of these alleles not been molecularly

Reviewer #3: This is a well-written manuscript that investigates the physiological defects that underlie the female sterile phenotype of mutations in the dropdead (drd) gene of Drosophila melanogaster. The authors show that the vitelline membrane portion of the eggshell for eggs laid by drd mutant females, is dye-permeable after the eggs are laid. Normally, the vitelline membrane becomes dye impermeable upon egg activation, when proteins are cross-linked by a poorly understood process. Because the drd sequence suggests that it is an integral membrane protein, consistent with published localization data, the authors hypothesized that Drd protein acts on proteins of the vitelline membrane in a necessary step towards cross-linking. Selective permeability of the vitelline membrane is critical for successful embryogenesis, so that gas exchange can occur, but desication does not.

The authors use flp-FRT-mediated mosaic analysis to show that the critical cell type for Drd gene expression is the somatic follicle cells that produce the components of the eggshell. This result is supported by similar results from dsRNA expression in the follicle cells using in vivo RNAi with follicle cell-specific Gal4 drivers. They further showed that an outer chorion eggshell protein was cross-linked normally in eggs laid by Drd mutant females, indicating a specific defect in vitelline membrane maturation.

To assess whether Drd was directly required during peroxidase-mediated glycosylation, the authors used an exogenous peroxidase method that should render dissected stage 14 immature eggs impermeable to chlorine bleach, even though they have not yet undergone egg activation. Although the control stage 14 immature eggs became impervious to bleach treatment, the immature eggs from stage 14 egg chambers did not.

Based on these results, it appears that Drd is necessary to make vitelline proteins available as substrates for the cross-linking reaction. This is an interesting finding, that will be useful to understanding this complex and poorly understood mechanism to mature the vitelline membrane.

Comments:

For the most part, the experiments are well-chosen and well-described. Sample sizes are appropriate; appropriate controls are used; and the results are critically interpreted.

However, the Western blot experiments lack information about replication. The methods are well-described, but it is not clear whether technical and/or biological replicates were performed for each stage examined.

I did not notice any typos, but did not search for them.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Dec 5;18(12):e0295412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295412.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jul 2023

See separate "response to reviewers" file for detailed responses to all reviewer comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Sheahan et al PLoS One rev1 response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Shubha Govind

31 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-14466R1The Drosophila drop-dead gene is required for eggshell integrityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blumenthal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 14 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shubha Govind, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed most of the textual changes suggested by the reviewers and the manuscript is stronger because of these changes. However, there are important experimental controls that are still missing because the authors did not adequately address the previous reviews. These controls are essential to support the conclusions made and should be included to uphold scientific expectations of well-controlled experimentation.

Major comments:

1. In their response to reviewers and in the manuscript, the authors reference Elalayli et al. (2008) as an example of a study characterizing the mutant phenotype of a vitelline membrane (VM) gene (palisade) with aberrant VM structure. Elalayli et al. perform additional experiments to characterize the mutant phenotype; these experiments were not included in the study by Sheahan et al. despite reviewer requests for similar experiments. For example, confirmation of fertilization using a tagged sperm tail line and evaluation of the stages at which embryonic arrest occurs were shown by Elalayli et al. and suggested by the reviewers, but not included in the revised manuscript. In the revised manuscript, Sheahan et al. use yolk composition to determine fertilization status. I am inclined to accept this less precise method but believe that the lack of staging for the observed arrest is problematic, since the authors’ main conclusions impinge on the timing at which Drd functions in VM formation.

a. Mutant alleles of genes involved in VM composition, secretion, and cross-linking typically lay unfertilized eggs due to defects in eggshell morphology or integrity (resulting in gas exchange and micropyle defects) or cell-cell signaling required for proper dorsal-ventral patterning. Some eggs derived from mutant females, however, are fertilized and those embryos typically arrest in gastrulation (again, likely due to patterning defects). drd-derived embryos may have distinct phenotypes from typical VM gene alleles, but these differences should be better characterized and comparisons should be made to place Drd in specific roles in VM cross-linking, as proposed by the authors.

b. The authors characterized the observed sterility in mutant- and RNAi-derived embryos (Tables 1 and 2) but should perform more precise staging of these embryos to clarify if their arrest is due to processes distinct from VM-associated defects shown for other VM genes. The authors show that 99% of drd¬¬-derived embryos arrest prior to gastrulation, suggesting maternal and not zygotic effects. To my knowledge, syncytial blastoderm arrest (i.e., prior to cellularization) is not usually associated with mutants for genes involved in VM cross-linking. Evidence that cellularization does not occur in drd-derived embryos may suggest another role for Drd in embryogenesis, thereby highlighting the importance of this assay. The results could simply be grouped by pre-cellularization vs. post-cellularization (instead of exact cell cycle stages) among pre-gastrulation arrested embryos. If the authors already have pictures of DAPI-stained embryos, fine-tuned staging quantitation should be straight-forward to perform.

c. Have the authors considered that Drd has two functions – one in VM cross-linking (although the authors suggest that Drd’s effect on VM is likely indirect) and the other in early embryonic signaling/cell cycles (which may be direct or indirect)? If Sheahan et al. quantified the arrest timing of drd1-derived embryos, these results would advance their understanding of Drd’s functions in vivo.

2. As pointed out by two reviewers, none of the Western blots presented in this study include loading controls. Although the authors responded as to why they thought this information would not be helpful, I disagree. The lack of protein detected cannot be claimed to be informative if it is not shown experimentally that protein was indeed loaded in those lanes. In the revised manuscript, the authors simply state that the same number of egg chambers or embryos were loaded per lane, but without experimental confirmation, the interpretation of their results, which is vital to the main conclusions of this study, is weakly supported experimentally. Identically loaded Coomassie-stained gels or Ponceau S-stained membranes before blotting would serve as useful loading controls (included in the supplement) if the authors were not able to use a typical loading control for technical reasons.

3. In the revised manuscript, the authors include a more comprehensive explanation of the ovoD system used to assess the role of drd in the germline vs. somatic cells. This addition is very helpful for the readers. The authors then conclude that drd is only required in somatic cells because 15/17 females were fertile after heat shock treatment. How did the authors assess fertility for this experiment? This information should be added to the Methods. In addition, these results seem contradictory to other results shown in the study wherein larval hatching is severely disrupted (Tables 1 and 2). If the authors used egg-hatching to confirm fertility, then these data do not support their claim that drd-derived embryos exhibit maternal-effect lethality. A better explanation of these contradictory results is requested.

Minor comments:

1. As mentioned previously, UAS-Dcr2 presents phenotypes on its own during oogenesis. The authors would not need to redo every experiment to include this control, as they suggest. Instead, simply collecting and analyzing UAS-Dcr2/+; GAL4/+ (for example) embryos under the same conditions used in the RNAi experiments could be done and compared to the RNAi knockdown results.

2. In the revised text, the authors refer to Figure S1 stating that RT-PCR was used to confirm that a shortened drd transcript was produced in drd1 mutants (lines 291-292), but it is not entirely clear how RT-PCR data was included in Fig. S1. I think the authors simply mean that RT-PCR was used to synthesize cDNA that was used for Sanger sequencing, but this is not clear from the text. Either RT-PCR results should be shown (as bands or in a normalized graph), or the Results and Methods should be clarified since the drd1 allele is used throughout their study.

Reviewer #2: The majority of the issues have been addressed. However, I believe the authors' did not upload the revised SFig 1. with the RT-PCR data. Further, the methods are still unclear for how intensity measurements were made (details/program/normalization or not needed). Finally, while the n's are added to Fig 2 and 6 legends, to be consistent with other figures they should be shown in the actual figures.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Shubha Govind

14 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-14466R2The Drosophila drop-dead gene is required for eggshell integrityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blumenthal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

There is a slight difference in the way the Reviewers and I have been looking at the Western images included in the manuscript from the way you want us to look at them. I think we get that the amounts of proteins loaded in the lanes is about equal as you controlled for the starting material that went into the protein preparation protocol.

We also understand that you are not making a quantitative argument; you are using the Western results to highlight drd's function in egg shell assembly/VM protein cross-linking, a process, that is temporally controlled.

We also see that your results for both Cp36 and Vm26Ab are consistent with previous reports.

Our focus now is on the lanes in all the blots where there is no signal. What we are looking for is evidence, that in these lanes, protein was loaded. This is important, because the negative results in the lanes in question are helping you build your story. While doing so, it is important to be convinced that the lanes in question actually received protein extract. This is standard practice these days and a valid request from the Reviewers.

The most straightforward solution would be for you to re-probe the blots shown in the manuscript with anti-lamin, anti-actin, or anti-tubulin (or some other oogenesis-related) antibody to show that the lanes without the signal contain protein. This will help win over the most skeptic of us about the validity of your results. I understand that this is a small point in the larger context of your manuscript, but I believe that not having this control will leave open the discussion whether protein sample was/was not loaded in the lanes without signal.

An additional solution would be for you to review your existing trial and final films from overexposed blots in which the background signal in the lanes without the signal matches the background signal in the lanes with signal. It would be best however to include images of such films (or ones from re-probed blots) in the supplement to explicitly make this point.

In doing so, please organize the data from the additional films into a supplemental figure where the relationship of the newly presented films (and lanes) with that of the ones already included in the manuscript is clearly stated to specifically address this point.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 29 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shubha Govind, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 3

Shubha Govind

22 Nov 2023

The Drosophila drop-dead gene is required for eggshell integrity

PONE-D-23-14466R3

Dear Dr. Blumenthal,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shubha Govind, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Shubha Govind

27 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-14466R3

The Drosophila drop-dead gene is required for eggshell integrity

Dear Dr. Blumenthal:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shubha Govind

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Protocol for neutral red permeability assay.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Raw numerical data.

    The six tabs in the spreadsheet contain underlying data for S2 and S5 Figs and Tables 1 and 2, Figs 2, 5 and 6, respectively.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Fig. Mutation in the drd1 allele.

    (A) Genomic DNA sequences. Upper sequence shows the wild-type sequence of the final five bases of exon 8 (bold), all of intron 8, and the first five bases of exon 9 (bold). The lower sequence shows the same region in drd1, with the single base change (green, underlined) and the new start of exon 9 (bold). (B) cDNA sequences. Upper sequence shows the wild-type sequence of cDNA from the region of the exon 8/9 junction. The splicing site is indicated in red. The lower sequence shows the same region in drd1, with the new splice junction shown in red and the added 10 bases in bold.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Egg-laying by drd mutant females.

    (A) Fraction of females in each condition that laid any eggs during their lifetime. Because some non yeast-fed females were assayed in groups of 2–3, the data were analyzed with two different assumptions regarding the distribution of egg-laying (see methods). Brackets indicate the effect of yeast feeding (two-sided Fisher’s exact test). (B) Number of eggs laid per female, omitting data from those females that laid no eggs. Brackets indicate the effect of yeast feeding (Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post-hoc multiple comparisons test). Blue: drdlwf females; Red: drd1 females. n = 67 drdlwf females, 21 yeast-fed drdlwf, 48 drd1, 24 yeast-fed drd1.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Expression of drd in ovarian follicle cells.

    (A-F) GFP expression driven by the drd-GAL4 driver. (A´-F´) DAPI staining of cell nuclei, with nurse cell nuclei in the anterior of each egg chamber indicated with asterisks. (A, A´) A stage 9 egg chamber, showing no GFP labeling. (B, B´) A stage 10A egg chamber, showing no GFP labeling. (C, C´) A stage 11 egg chamber, showing labeled follicle cells. (D, D´) A stage 10B egg chamber showing labeled follicle cells. Labeled stretch and centripetal follicle cells in C and D are indicated with arrowheads and arrows, respectively. (E, E´, F, F´) Control stage 10B (E, E´) and stage 12 (F, F´) egg chambers lacking the drd-GAL4 transgene. A-D are single confocal images, and E-F are maximum intensity projections of Z-stacks. Scale bar is 100 μm.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Overexposed Western blots showing signals in “blank” lanes.

    (A) Stage 10 and 14 egg chambers dissected from drd1/FM7c heterozygous and drd1/drd1 mutant females, as well as eggs (e) laid by these females that were collected 0–5 hr after oviposition. 2 eggs or egg chambers per lane (except mutant st 10, 1 egg chamber), 1:25,000 primary antibody dilution. (B) Laid eggs collected 0–4.5 hr after oviposition. Lane 1: w; CyO/+; T155-GAL4/+, (sibling controls of lane 2); Lane 2: w; UAS-Dcr-2 drdGD3367/+; T155-GAL4/+; Lane 3: w; CyO/+; T155-GAL4/+ (sibling controls of lane 4); Lane 4: w; drdGD15915 UAS-Dcr-2/+; T155-GAL4/+; Lane 5: w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (sibling controls of lane 6); Lane 6: w; UAS-Dcr-2 drdGD3367/CY2-GAL4; Lane 7: w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (sibling controls of lane 8); Lane 8: w; drdGD15915 UAS-Dcr-2/CY2-GAL4. 5 eggs per lane, 1:10,000 primary antibody dilution. (C) Stage 14 egg chambers and laid eggs collected 0–3.5 h after oviposition. Lanes 1–2: w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (sibling control of lanes 3–4); Lanes 3–4: w; drdGD15915 UAS-Dcr-2/CY2-GAL4; Lanes 5–6: w; CY2-GAL4/CyO (sibling control of lanes 7–8); Lanes 7–8: w; UAS-Dcr-2 drdGD3367/CY2-GAL4. Left gel, 2 eggs or egg chambers per lane; right gel, 1 egg or egg chamber per lane, 1:25,000 primary antibody dilution. Asterisks indicate signals in lanes containing laid eggs from control females.

    (PDF)

    S5 Fig. VM staining intensity and width.

    Black open circles: heterozygous controls; red closed circles: drd1 homozygotes. (A) Plot of VM intensity measurements as a function of oocyte size ratio (A-P length/lateral width). There is no significant linear correlation between VM intensity and size ratio for either heterozygotes (p = 0.13) or homozygotes (p = 0.19, F test). (B) Comparison of VM intensity measurements between heterozygotes and homozygotes. Horizontal bars represent the means. The p-value is from a Mann-Whitney test comparing the two genotypes. (C) Plot of VM width measurements as a function of oocyte size ratio (A-P length/lateral width). There is no significant linear correlation between VM width and size ratio for either heterozygotes (p = 0.40) or homozygotes (p = 0.13, F test). (D) Comparison of VM width measurements between heterozygotes and homozygotes. Horizontal bars represent the means. The p-value is from a t-test comparing the two genotypes. n = 21 heterozygotes and 22 homozygotes.

    (PDF)

    S1 Raw images. Images of Western blots used in Figs 3, 4, and 7.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Sheahan et al PLoS One rev1 response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLoS One rev2 response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Sheahan et al PLoS One rev3 response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files or are held in a public repository at https://epublications.marquette.edu/sheahan_2023/


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES