Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 27;21(3):e0345918. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345918

GAL4-based functional screen of neuropeptides in Drosophila reproduction

Madhumala K Sadanandappa 1,¤a,*, Caliope Marin 1,¤b, Shinae Park 1, Shivaprasad H Sathyanarayana 1,¤a, Giovanni Bosco 1,*
Editor: Md Rajib Sharker2
PMCID: PMC13028521  PMID: 41894398

Abstract

Neuropeptides are evolutionarily conserved signaling molecules that regulate diverse behavioral and physiological processes, including reproduction. Although, several neuropeptides have established roles in reproductive regulation, the reproductive functions of many neuropeptides in Drosophila melanogaster remain poorly characterized. Here, we performed a targeted neurogenetic screening to systematically assess the contribution of 25 neuropeptides to reproductive output. Using neuropeptide-specific GAL4 drivers and synaptic silencing with tetanus toxin, we quantified the egg-laying as an integrated functional readout of reproduction. Disruption of 14 neuropeptides altered egg-laying, including eight neuropeptides not previously described to play roles in reproductive regulation. While some of these effects are likely indirect and may reflect contributions from both female and male flies or systematic physiological signaling, these results reveal broad involvement of neuropeptidergic pathways in reproductive function. Collectively, this study establishes a functional screening framework, identifies new reproductive neuropeptides, and provides a curated resource to guide future mechanistic studies of neuropeptide-mediated brain-gonad communication.

Introduction

Neuropeptides are evolutionarily conserved signaling molecules that coordinate diverse behavioral and physiological processes, including feeding, metabolism, circadian rhythms, stress responses, and reproduction [15]. Unlike classical neurotransmitters, neuropeptides often act over longer spatial and temporal scales, enabling the integration of complex systemic physiological signals across tissues. Neuropeptides are expressed not only in the nervous system but also in various peripheral and internal organs, contributing to autonomic and homeostatic functions [1,6]. In Drosophila melanogaster, over 50 neuropeptides and their cognate receptors have been identified, many structurally and functionally conserved with vertebrate counterparts [512]. This high degree of conservation, combined with versatile genetic tools, makes Drosophila an excellent model for investigating neuropeptide-mediated regulation of reproduction and brain-gonad communication.

Reproduction is tightly coordinated by internal physiological cues and environmental factors across species [1,3]. In mammals, the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis centrally regulates reproduction, wherein hypothalamic gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) stimulates the release of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone from the anterior pituitary, which in turn control gametogenesis and hormone production [13,14]. GnRH secretion is further modulated by neuropeptides such as kisspeptin and neuropeptide Y (NPY), as well as metabolic hormones including leptin and insulin, linking reproductive function to energy balance and environmental conditions [15]. Similarly, in Drosophila, neuropeptides act directly on reproductive tissues and germs cells, and indirectly by regulating reproductive behaviors, nutritional status, and systemic physiology. While classical regulators such as ecdysteroids, juvenile hormone (JH), sex peptide (SP), neuropeptide F (NPF), and Drosophila insulin-like peptides (DILPs) have been well characterized, the roles of many other neuropeptides in reproduction remain poorly described [6,1618].

To systematically investigate neuropeptide contributions to reproduction, we performed a targeted neurogenetic screen of 25 neuropeptide genes in Drosophila (Fig 1). These were selected in two categories: (i) neuropeptides described or known to have a role in reproduction, to validate the sensitivity and robustness of our functional assay, and (ii) neuropeptides not previously described in reproduction, enabling discovery of novel regulators. This design allowed both confirmatory testing of known reproductive neuropeptides and unbiased identification of novel candidates.

Fig 1. Workflow for the Drosophila neuropeptide screen.

Fig 1

Schematic representation of the experimental workflow used for functional screening of neuropeptides using the GAL4-UAS system. Unmated NP-GAL4 females were crossed with UAS-transgene males, and F1 female progeny were analyzed for neuropeptide expression in the brain and ovaries using UAS-mCD8::GFP reporter. To examine neuropeptide function in reproduction, an egg-laying assay was performed using genotype- and age-matched flies expressing either an inactive (UAS-TNTVIF) or active (UAS-TNT) form of tetanus toxin. Schematic created with BioRender.com.

We used neuropeptide-specific GAL4 drivers combined with synaptic silencing via tetanus toxin and quantified the number of eggs laid as a functional readout of reproductive output. This approach minimized off-target effects commonly associated with RNAi-mediated perturbations while allowing assessment of both direct actions on reproductive tissues and indirect effects mediated through systemic physiology and behavior [6,9,1921]. Overall, our study provides a functional framework for linking neuropeptidergic signaling to reproductive function, validates known regulators, and identifies novel candidate neuropeptides for mechanistic studies of brain-gonad communication and conserved neuropeptide functions across species.

Materials and methods

Drosophila stocks and fly husbandry

Unless otherwise stated, all fly lines, including crosses, were maintained on standard cornmeal medium composed of cornmeal, molasses, agar, and yeast [22], at 25 ºC under 12:12 hours light-dark (LD) cycle-controlled incubators. Except for Tk-gut-GAL4 (Irene Miguel-Aliaga, Imperial College London, UK) and UAS-mCD8::GFP (Mani Ramaswami, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland), all other listed fly lines were obtained from the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (BDSC; https://bdsc.indiana.edu). For stock information, refer to Table 1. Additional genetic information is available on FlyBase (http://flybase.org).

Table 1. Drosophila stocks used in this study.

Neuropeptide (Acronym) Genotype Identifier Chromosome
insertion
1 Adipokinetic Hormone (AKH) y[1] w[*]; P{w[+mC]=Akh-gal4.L}2/CyO, y[+]
y[1] w[*]; P{w[+mC]=Akh-gal4.L}3
RRID:BDSC_25683
RRID:BDSC_25684
2
3
2 Allatostatin A (AstA) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=AstA-GAL4.2.1}3M/TM6B, Tb [1]
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=AstA-GAL4.2.1}5
w[1118]; wg[Sp-1]/CyO; P{w[+mC]=AstA-GAL4.2.74}4
RRID:BDSC_51978
RRID:BDSC_51979
RRID:BDSC_80160
3
2
3
3 Allatostatin B
(AstB/MIP)
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Mip-GAL4.TH}1M/TM6B, Tb [1]
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Mip-GAL4.TH}2M
RRID:BDSC_51983
RRID:BDSC_51984
3
2
4 Allatostatin C (AstC) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=AstC-GAL4.TH}1M/TM6B, Tb [1] RRID:BDSC_52017 3
5 Bursicon (Burs) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Burs-GAL4.TH}4M
w[*]; P{w[+mC]=Burs-GAL4.P}P12
RRID:BDSC_51980
RRID:BDSC_40972
2
2
6 Partner of bursicon (pBurs) w[1118]; PBac{w[+mC]=IT.GAL4}1139-G4 RRID:BDSC_65470 2
7 Capability (CAPA) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Capa-GAL4.TH}4F
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Capa-GAL4.TH}5F
RRID:BDSC_51969
RRID:BDSC_51970
2
X
8 CCHamide-1 (CCHa-1) w[1118]; Mi{GFP[E.3xP3]=ET1}CCHa1[MB11962] RRID:BDSC_29266 3
9 Crustacean cardioactive peptide (CCAP) y[1] w[*]; P{w[+mC]=CCAP-GAL4.P}16/CyO
y[1] w[*]; Bl [1]/CyO, y[+]; P{w[+mC]=CCAP-GAL4.P}9
RRID:BDSC_25685
RRID:BDSC_25686
2
3
10 Corazonin (CRZ) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Crz-GAL4.391}3M
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Crz-GAL4.391}4M
RRID:BDSC_51976
RRID:BDSC_51977
2
3
11 dFMRFamide (dFMRFa) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=FMRFa-GAL4.TH}1M
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=FMRFa-GAL4.S}FG5
RRID:BDSC_51990
RRID:BDSC_56837
3
2
12 Diuretic hormone 31 (DH31) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Dh31-GAL4.TH}2M
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Dh31-GAL4.TH}5F
RRID:BDSC_51988
RRID:BDSC_51989
3
X
13 Diuretic hormone 44 (DH44) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Dh44-GAL4.TH}2M RRID:BDSC_51987 3
14 Drosulfakinin (DSK) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Dsk-GAL4.TH}3M RRID:BDSC_51981 3
15 Ecdysis triggering hormone (ETH) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=ETH-GAL4.TH}1M RRID:BDSC_51982 2
16 Eclosion hormone (EH) P{w[+mC]=GAL4-Eh.2.4}C21 RRID:BDSC_6301 2
17 Hugin (hug-PK) w[*]; P{w[+mC]=Hug-GAL4.S3}3 RRID:BDSC_58769 3
18 Leucokinin (LK) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Lk-GAL4.TH}1
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Lk-GAL4.TH}2M
RRID:BDSC_51992
RRID:BDSC_51993
X
2
19 Myosuppressin (MS) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Ms-GAL4.TH}1M/TM6B, Tb [1]
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Ms-GAL4.TH}6Ma
RRID:BDSC_51985
RRID:BDSC_51986
3
2
20 Pigment-dispersing factor (PDF) P{w[+mC]=Pdf-GAL4.P2.4}X, y[1] w[*] RRID:BDSC_6899 X
21 Proctolin (Proc) w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Proc-GAL4.TH}2M/TM6B, Tb [1]
w[1118]; P{w[+mC]=Proc-GAL4.TH}6M
RRID:BDSC_51971
RRID:BDSC_51972
3
2
22 RYamide (RYa) w[1118]; PBac{w[+mC]=IT.GAL4}0922-G4 RRID:BDSC_63899 2
23 short Neuropeptide F (sNPF) P{w[+mC]=sNPF-GAL4.TH}2, w[1118] RRID:BDSC_51991 X
24 SIFamide (SIFa) w[1118]; SIFa[1]
w[1118]; SIFa[2]
w[1118]; SIFa[3]
RRID:BDSC_80696
RRID:BDSC_80697
RRID:BDSC_80698
2
2
2
25 Tachykinin (TK) Tk-gut-GAL4 N/A 2
Other stocks
26 w[*];P{w[+mC]=UAS-TeTxLC.(-)V}A2 RRID:BDSC_28840 2
27 w[*];P{w[+mC]=UAS-TeTxLC.tnt}G2 RRID:BDSC_28838 2
28 UAS-mCD8::GFP N/A 2

Immunostaining

Brains and ovaries were dissected from 6-days-old, mated females and immunolabeled following a previously described protocol [23]. Primary antibodies included chicken anti-GFP (1:1000, #ab13970, Abcam, MA, USA) and mouse anti-Bruchpilot (nc82, 1:20, Erich Buchner, University of Würzburg, Germany). Alexa fluor-conjugated secondary antibodies (1:400) were used for detection. Ovaries were stained with phalloidin and 4’,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI). Samples were mounted in Vectashield (H-1000, Vector Laboratories, CA, USA) and imaged using a Nikon A1R confocal microscope or a Nikon Eclipse E800 microscope. Acquired fluorescent images were processed with Nikon NIS-Elements and Adobe Photoshop. For each genotype and neuropeptide, 10 brains and 10 ovaries were examined for GAL4 driven UAS-mCD8::GFP expression.

Behavioral assay

Freshly emerged F1 progeny (0–12 hrs post-eclosion) from control (NP-GAL4 > UAS-TNTVIF) and experimental (NP-GAL4 > UAS-TNT) crosses were collected and transferred to separate bottles containing fresh fly media (~50 flies per bottle). In each experiment, NP-GAL4 refers to the neuropeptide-specific GAL4 insertion line being tested (Table 1). Flies were kept for six days at 25 ºC under a 12:12 hours LD cycle.

For the behavioral assay, 6-days-old flies were anesthetized with carbon dioxide, and groups of five females and two males of the same genotype–unless otherwise indicated–were placed in vials with fresh media. After 24-hours of egg-laying under controlled incubator conditions, adult flies were removed, and eggs were counted using a ZEISS Stemi 2000 stereomicroscope [24]. All vials were coded, and the experimenter was blinded to the genotype tested.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis and visualization were performed using Microsoft® Excel (version 16.90) and GraphPad Prism (version 10.2.3). Mean values were derived from two to three independent experiments. Statistical significance was assessed using an unpaired t-test with Welch’s correction. The following significance thresholds were applied: p-value < 0.05 (*), p < 0.001 (**), p < 0.0001 (***), p < 0.00001 (****), and p > 0.05 was considered non-significant (ns).

Results and discussion

Strategy for neuropeptide screening

This neurogenetic screen was designed as an unbiased functional survey to assess the contribution of D. melanogaster neuropeptides to reproductive output using a genetic and behavioral framework. We selected 25 neuropeptides known to regulate diverse behavioral and physiological processes, including foraging, aggression, sensory processing, circadian rhythms, sleep, growth and development, ecdysis, lifespan, metabolism, diapause, stem cell activation and homeostasis, reproduction, stress responses, learning and memory [512]. An overview of these neuropeptides, their receptors, and previously reported functions is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Drosophila neuropeptides, their receptors, and previously reported functions**.

Neuropeptide (Acronym) Annotation Receptor(s) Receptor annotation Reported functions** References
1 Adipokinetic Hormone
(AKH)
CG1171 AkhR CG11325 Regulates nutritional and oxidative stress responses, carbohydrates and lipids homeostasis, locomotor activity, diapause, and lifespan [2539]
2 Allatostatin A
(AstA)
CG13633 AstA-R1
AstA-R2
CG2872
CG10001
Involved in food search and feeding behaviors, sleep, appetitive learning, juvenile growth and maturation [4046]
3 Allatostatin B (AstB/MIP) CG6456 SPR CG16752
CG30106#
CG14484#
Modulates chemosensory processing, feeding behaviors, circadian clock, sleep, and female mating receptivity [4753]
4 Allatostatin C
(AstC)
CG14919 AstC-R1
AstC-R2
CG7285
CG13702
Food intake, metabolic homeostasis, nociception, circadian rhythm for locomotor activity and oogenesis, diapause, and reproduction [5459]
5 Bursicon
(Burs/Burs alpha)
CG13419 rickets (rk) CG8930 Functions in cuticle tanning and sclerotization, wing expansion, energy homeostasis, and sleep plasticity [6064]
6 Partner of bursicon
(pBurs/Burs beta)
CG15284 rickets (rk) CG8930 Functions in cuticle tanning and sclerotization and wing expansion [61,62]
7 Capability
(CAPA)
CG15520 CapaR
PK1-R
CG14575
CG9918
CAPA-PVK1 and 2 acts as diuretic hormone on Malpighian tubules, involved in osmoregulation, myostimulation, and stress response [6569]
8 CCHamide-1
(CCHa-1)
CG14358 CCHa1-R CG30106 Regulates circadian activity and sleep,
sensory perception, and olfactory behaviors
[7074]
9 Crustacean cardioactive peptide (CCAP) CG4910 CCAP-R CG6111 Ecdysis, heartbeat regulation, feeding behaviors and metabolism [7578]
10 Corazonin
(CRZ)
CG3302 CrzR CG10698 Modulates food search and feeding behaviors, ethanol seduction and metabolism, stress responses, sexually dimorphic behaviors, sperm transfer and copulation [7986]
11 dFMRFamide (dFMRFa) CG2346 dFMRFaR CG2114 Controls ecdysis, sleep, myomodulation, body fat, and flight behaviors [8792]
12 Diuretic hormone 31 (DH31) CG13094 DH31-R CG32843
CG4395
Diuretic peptide required for larval peristalsis, feeding-courtship behavioral switch, reproductive dormancy, circadian control of locomotor activity, temperature preference, sleep, learning and memory [93102]
13 Diuretic hormone 44 (DH44) CG8348 DH44-R1
DH44-R2
CG8422
CG12370
Regulates locomotor activity, diuresis, nutrient-sensing, circadian control of activity-rest rhythms, starvation tolerance, sperm ejection and storage [103116]
14 Drosulfakinin
(DSK)
CG18090 CCKLR-17D1
CCKLR-17D3
CG42301
CG32540
Controls feeding, locomotor activity, nociception, aggression, social and reproductive behaviors [117126]
15 Ecdysis-triggering hormone (ETH) CG18105 ETHR CG5911 Molting exocuticle (ecdysis), reproduction, courtship behaviors and memory [127132]
16 Eclosion hormone (EH) CG5400 Guanylyl cyclase* CG10738 Development and ecdysis behaviors [133135]
17 Hugin
(hug-PK)
CG6371 PK2-R1
PK2-R2
CG8784
CG8795
Taste, food search and intake, evasion behavior, circadian rhythm, and heart rate [111,136141]
18 Leucokinin
(LK)
CG13480 LKr CG10626 Modulates by chemosensory responses, feeding behaviors, diuresis, circadian activity, airway clearance, stress tolerance, and escape behaviors [113,142152]
19 Myosuppressin
(MS)
CG6440 MsR1
MsR2
CG8985
CG43745
Circadian activity, sleep, muscle contraction, food search and intake [153155]
20 Pigment-dispersing factor (PDF) CG6496 Pdfr CG13758 Synchronization and regulation of clock neurons activity, circadian rhythms, locomotion, diuresis, mating and copulation [156161]
21 Proctolin
(Proc)
CG7105 Proc-R CG6986 Controls heart rate, muscle contraction, and larval locomotion [162164]
22 RYamide (RYa) CG40733 RYa-R CG5811 Suppress feeding behaviors [165,166]
23 short Neuropeptide F (sNPF) CG13968 sNPF-R CG7395 Regulates cell and organism growth, carbohydrate metabolism, feeding behaviors, nociception, olfactory processing, circadian rhythm, locomotion, sleep, lifespan, learning and memory [158,160,167176]
24 SIFamide
(SIFa)
CG33527 SIFaR CG10823 Modulates appetite, feeding rhythm, sleep, and sexual behaviors, including female receptivity to male courtship [177182]
25 Tachykinin
(TK)
CG14734 TkR86C TkR99D CG6515
CG7887
Lipid metabolism, aggression behavior, nociception, olfactory processing, locomotion, and food search [183189]

Note: *Indicates non-GPCR receptors; #putative receptors; **This table presents a representative selection of functions and references for Drosophila neuropeptides but is not an exhaustive list.

The selected 25 neuropeptides were grouped into two categories. The first included neuropeptides with known roles in reproduction to validate the robustness and sensitivity of the assay. The second included neuropeptides for which reproductive functions had not been previously described, allowing the identification of potential novel regulators of reproduction in Drosophila. Well-characterized reproductive neuropeptides, such as DILPs, SP, and NPF, were excluded from the current screen to focus on additional candidate regulators [6,9,17].

To examine neuropeptidergic contribution to reproductive output, we employed GAL4/UAS-based neurogenetic approach [190]. Neuropeptide-specific GAL4 driver lines (NP-GAL4) were first validated by assessing the expression of a membrane-bound fluorescent reporter (UAS-mCD8::GFP) in the brains and ovaries of adult female flies (Fig 1, Tables 1 and 3, and S1 File). This expression analysis was performed to primarily to confirm driver activity and provide anatomical context for the screening results, rather than to establish functional causality. Following validation, reproductive output was quantified using a standard 24-hour egg-laying assay.

Table 3. Expression of neuropeptide GAL4s and egg-laying assay. NP-GAL4 > UAS-mCD8::GFP expression in the brain and ovaries of adult female flies. Neuropeptide expression is denoted as ‘+’ for presence, ‘-’ for absence, and ‘?’ for cases where data are either unavailable or require further validation. The egg-laying data shows the average number of eggs laid over a 24-hour period by controls (NP-GAL4 > UAS-TNTVIF) and experimental flies (NP-GAL4 > UAS-TNT), with the number of replicates noted in parentheses (n) and p-values for statistical comparisons. Egg-laying increase and decrease are represented as ‘Δ’ and ‘∇’, respectively.

Neuropeptide Stock Expression Egg-laying
Brain Ovary NP-GAL4>
UAS-TNTVIF (n)
NP-GAL4>
UAS-TNT (n)
p-values
1 AKH #25683
#25684


63.85 ± 11.88 (27)
165.94 ± 14.53 (31)
153.97 ± 10.06 (29)
130.71 ± 13.77 (31)
p < 0.0001Δ
p = 0.084
2 AstA #51978
#51979
#80160
+
+
+
+
+
?
306 ± 8.82 (16)
206.06 ± 8.24(18)
186.47 ± 8.33 (15)
237.43 ± 11.81 (16)
230.19 ± 4.37 (28)
171.19 ± 9.44 (16)
p < 0.0001∇
p = 0.016Δ
p = 0.235
3 AstB/MIP #51983 + 264 ± 14.83 (13) 35.92 ± 10.24 (13) p < 0.0001∇
#51984 + ? 51984 > TNT - Larval lethality
4 AstC #52017 + 285.83 ± 15.52 (24) 251.32 ± 13.91 (27) p = 0.094
5 Burs #51980
#40972


+
219.75 ± 9.95 (24)
279.71 ± 8.21 (24)
189.33 ± 10.08 (24)
250.13 ± 11.83 (24)
p = 0.037∇
p = 0.046∇
6 pBurs #65470 + + 65470 > TNT - Pupal lethality
7 CAPA #51969
#51970

+

284.65 ± 8.28 (17)
251.94 ± 6.19 (16)
189 ± 9.20 (17)
213 ± 8.97 (16)
p < 0.0001∇
p = 0.001∇
8 CCHa-1* #29266 n/a 112.40 ± 14.43 (10) 128.50 ± 14.62 (10) p = 0.443
9 CCAP #25685
#25686
+
+
+
+
134.57 ± 12.31 (21)
117.05 ± 15.51 (20)
85.62 ± 13.04 (21)
90.50 ± 12.34 (20)
p = 0.009∇
p = 0.189
10 CRZ #51976
#51977
+
+

241.94 ± 8.94 (16)
269.19 ± 6.09 (16)
196.25 ± 13.95 (16)
196.81 ± 11.99 (16)
p = 0.011∇
p < 0.0001∇
11 dFMRFa #51990
#56837


263.63 ± 4.04 (16)
221.60 ± 19.01 (5)
183.13 ± 11.38 (16)
53.80 ± 22.26 (5)
p < 0.0001 ∇ p < 0.0001∇
12 DH31 #51988
#51989
+
+
+
+
319.57 ± 16.26 (14)
252 ± 7.14 (22)
272.40 ± 14.27 (15)
282.38 ± 8.07 (21)
p = 0.038∇
p = 0.007Δ
13 DH44 #51987 + 305.17 ± 6.57 (18) 222.17 ± 10.56 (18) p < 0.0001∇
14 DSK #51981 + 263.92 ± 8.08 (24) 220.96 ± 7.53 (24) p = 0.0003∇
15 ETH #51982 51982 > TNT - Pupal lethality
16 EH #6301 + 168.43 ± 10.94 (23) 151.04 ± 15.06 (23) p = 0.356
17 hug-PK #58769 + 255 ± 17.18 (26) 244.56 ± 17.29 (18) p = 0.670
18 LK #51992
#51993

+

238.19 ± 9.63 (16)
237.75 ± 5.38 (16)
182.06 ± 17.09 (16)
241.38 ± 8.98 (16)
p = 0.008∇
p = 0.697
19 MS #51985
#51986

?
266.08 ± 4.80 (25)
283.12 ± 10.55 (17)
278 ± 9.17 (24)
261.9 ± 9.09 (20)
p = 0.257
p = 0.137
20 PDF #6899 + 142.59 ± 14.85 (22) 175.23 ± 13.07 (22) p = 0.106
21 Proc #51971
#51972
+
+
+
+
51971 > TNT and 51972 > TNT - Pupal lethality
22 RYa #63899 + + 237.94 ± 16.17 (16) 130.88 ± 9.39 (16) p < 0.0001∇
23 sNPF #51991 + 184.62 ± 11.74 (26) 190.61 ± 9.90 (28) p = 0.698
24 SIFa* #80696
#80697
#80698
n/a 112.40 ± 14.43 (10) 98.80 ± 11.62 (10)
144.80 ± 8.48 (10)
154.25 ± 7.70 (8)
p = 0.473
p = 0.073
p = 0.023Δ
25 TK n/a 140.38 ± 18.81 (16) 119.13 ± 14.70 (16) p = 0.380

Note: *CS flies are used as controls for these neuropeptide mutant lines and n/a not applicable.

Neuropeptide signaling was disrupted by expressing the active form of tetanus toxin (UAS-TNT) under NP-GAL4 control, thereby blocking synaptic vesicle release through enzymatic cleavage of synaptobrevin–a core component of the SNARE (soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptor) [19,20]. Age- and genotype-matched flies expressing an inactive tetanus toxin (UAS-TNTVIF) under the same NP-GAL4 drivers served as controls (Tables 1 and 3). This strategy enabled a systematic functional evaulation of neuropeptidergic signaling in reproductive output (Figs 1 and 2).

Fig 2. GAL4-based screen for neuropeptides required in reproduction.

Fig 2

Histograms showing mean egg counts over a 24-hour period for (A-C) NP-GAL4 > UAS-TNTVIF and NP-GAL4 > TNT flies, classified into three categories: (A) reduced egg-laying, (B) no significant change, or (C) inconclusive results. NP-GAL4 denotes the neuropeptide-specific GAL4 insertion line being tested. Refer to Table 1 for additional genotype information. (D) Egg-laying phenotypes for neuropeptide mutants–CCHa-1 and SIFa. CS flies used as wildtype controls. Egg counts were measured as the number of eggs laid per five females. Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical significance was determined using an unpaired t-test with Welch’s correction. p-values are indicated as follows: p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.001 (**), p < 0.0001 (***), p < 0.00001 (****), and “ns” for non-significance (p > 0.05). See Table 3 for sample sizes (n) and p-values.

Outcomes of neuropeptide screening

Reproductive output in Drosophila depends on coordinated regulation of behavior and physiology, including courtship, mating, gametogenesis, and post-mating responses, which collectively promote reproductive success [6]. Female oogenesis is a complex, multistep process regulated by hormonal, genetic, and neuronal inputs that collectively govern follicle maturation, oocyte polarity, and egg release [17,191].

Given this complexity, changes observed in behavioral assay may reflect either direct effects of female reproductive physiology or indirect influences mediated through neural circuits, endocrine pathways, or male-derived contributions. Improtantly, because both male and female flies in the experimental groups carried NP-GAL4 > UAS-TNT transgenes, the observed phenotypes could arise from neuropeptide perturbation in females, males, or both. Accordingly, we interpret the results as identifying neuropeptides with potential roles in reproduction rather than assigning sex-specific or mechanistic functions.

Based on phenotypic outcomes from neuronal silencing using the GAL4/UAS system, neuropeptides were classified into four categories:

  • a. Reduced egg-laying: Disruption of nine neuropeptides−allatostatin B (AstB/MIP), bursicon (Burs), capability (CAPA), corazonin (CRZ), diuretic hormone 44 (DH44), drosulfakinin (DSK), Drosophila FMRFamide (dFMRFa), and RYamide (RYa)−led to a significant reduction in egg-laying in NP-GAL4 > UAS-TNT flies compared to age-matched controls (NP-GAL4 > UAS-TNTVIF) (Fig 2A).

  • b

    No observable effects: Interference with eight neuropeptides−allatostatin C (AstC), CCHamide-1 (CCHa-1), eclosion hormone (EH), hugin (hug-PK), myosuppressin (MS), pigment-dispersing factor (PDF), short neuropeptide F (sNPF), and tachykinin (TK)−did not significantly affect egg-laying under our assay conditions (Figs 2B and 2D).

  • c

    Inconclusive effects: Six neuropeptides−adipokinetic hormone (AKH), allatostatin A (AstA), crustacean cardioactive peptide (CCAP), diuretic hormone 31 (DH31), leucokinin (LK), and SIFamide (SIFa)−produced inconsistent phenotypes across different GAL4 lines, precluding definitive functional conclusions (Figs 2C and 2D).

  • d

    Developmental phenotypes: Silencing of three neuropeptides−partner of bursicon (pBurs), ecdysis-triggering hormone (ETH), and proctolin (Proc)−caused developmental lethality, preventing the assessment of adult reproductive phenotypes (Table 3).

We tested one to three independent driver lines per neuropeptide to account for potential differences in insertion sites, expression patterns, and genetic background. Rather than selectively reporting only strong or consistent phenotypes, we document variability across GAL4 lines, highlighting the need for careful validation with complementary approaches and cautious interpretation in future mechanistic studies.

Functional roles of neuropeptides in Drosophila reproduction

Beyond well-established reproductive regulators such as DILPs, SP, NPF, JH, and ecdysteroids, growing evidence demonstrates that numerous additional neuropeptides contribute to reproductive behaviors and physiology in Drosophila [6,16,17]. For example, AstB/MIP regulates female post-mating responses [47,51]; CRZ controls male ejaculation [80,85]; DH31 promotes oocyte maturation through JH biosynthesis [21,102]; DH44 delays sperm ejection [109,116]; DSK modulates courtship behaviors [125,126]; and SIFa regulates mating dynamics [177,179]. Consistent with these studies, our screen corroborates roles of AstB/MIP, CRZ, DH31, DH44, DSK, and SIFa in female reproductive output [6,16] (Fig 2 and Table 3), validating the sensitivity of the assay.

Allatostatin B (AstB), also known as myoinhibitory peptides (MIPs), are conserved ligands of the sex peptide receptor (SPR), which mediates female post-mating behavioral changes in response to male-derived SP transferred during copulation. The mip gene (CG6456) encodes five peptides (MIP1–5) expressed in the central nervous system (CNS) and intestine but absent from seminal fluid [10,192195]. In our screen, MIP-GAL4 drivers showed brain expression; however, neuronal silencing produced distinct outcomes. Driver #51983 significantly reduced egg-laying and showed ovary reporter expression, whereas driver #51984 caused larval lethality (Fig 2A and Table 3), likely reflecting differences in expression patterns and developmental requirements.

Functionally, MIPs relay SP signals from SPR-positive sensory neurons (SPSNs) innervating the uterine lumen to higher-order CNS circuits. Activation of female-specific MIP interneurons in the abdominal ganglion restores receptivity in mated females, whereas silencing these neurons reduces re-mating [51,53]. In addition, mating-induced SPR upregulation in polyamine-responsive chemosensory neurons–olfactory (IR41a and IR76b) and gustatory (IR76b)–further enables MIP signaling to shift food preference toward nutrient-rich diets that support reproduction [47]. SP–MIP signaling has also been implicated in mating-dependent long-term memory formation [52]. Collectively, these findings position AstB/MIP as a central neuromodulatory pathway integrating mating status, sensory input, and reproductive physiology.

Corazonin (CRZ) is a highly conserved neuropeptide related to AKH, with receptors homologous to the mammalian GnRH receptors [196199]. In our screen, CRZ-GAL4 expression was observed in the brain, and neuronal perturbation significantly reduced egg-laying (Fig 2A and Table 3). CRZ is essential for successful copulation in males; silencing four male-specific abdominal CRZ neurons prolongs copulation and disrupts sperm and seminal fluid transfer via serotonergic projection neurons innervating the accessory glands [80]. In addition, CRZ indirectly influences reproduction through energy mobilization and interactions with endocrine pathways involving JH, DILPs, NPF, and ecdysone signaling, all of which are central to reproductive behavior and physiology [200].

Diuretic hormone 31 (DH31) is a 31-amino acid calcitonin-like peptide involved in diuresis and in regulateing circadian temperature preference rhythms, locomotor activity, sleep, intestinal immunity, and the behavioral switch between feeding and courtship [93102]. DH31 is expressed in brain neurosecretory cells and gut EECs. In our screen, both DH31-GAL4 drivers showed reporter expression in the brain and low but detectable expression in mature ovarian follicles (Table 3 and S1 File). Neuronal silencing produced opposing effects on egg-laying: driver #51988 reduced egg-laying, whereas #51989 increased it (Fig 2C and Table 3). Similar discrepancies have been reported previously and attributed to impaired ovulation rather than defective oogenesis, leading to retention of mature oocytes [21].

Mechanistically, DH31-expressing brain neurons innervate the corpus allatum, where DH31-R activation suppresses JH biosynthesis. Reduced JH signaling induces reproductive dormancy by inhibiting oocyte maturation, directly linking DH31 signaling and reproductive state regulation [102]. DH31 also coordinates reproductive and feeding behaviors in response to nutrient availability: protein intake stimulates DH31 release from EECs, activating distinct DH31-R-expressing brain circuits that promote courtship via CRZ or suppress feeding via AstC [99]. Together, these findings suggest that DH31 regulate reproductive output by coupling nutritional state with ovulation and behavioral prioritization, rather than by directly controlling oogenesis.

Diuretic hormone 44 (DH44), homologous to mammalian corticotropin-releasing hormone, is a 44-amino acid neuropeptide produced by neurosecretory cells in the adult brain [201,202]. In addition to its primary role in osmoregulation, DH44 modulates female reproductive physiology by regulating sperm storage. Following mating, females eject excess ejaculate several hours after copulation; DH44 signaling via DH44-R1 delays this process, promoting efficient sperm storage and subsequent egg-laying [109]. Consistent with this function, silencing DH44-expressing neurons reduced egg-laying in our assay (Fig 2A and Table 3), likely due to impaired sperm retention and reduced fertilization efficiency [109,116]. DH44 also regulates sexually dimorphic and state-dependent behaviors through doublesex (dsx)-producing pC1 neurons, modulating locomotion, sexual arousal, and female sexual drive via CREB-dependent transcriptional mechanisms [107,115].

Drosulfakinin (DSK), homologous to mammalian cholecystokinin (CCK), encodes two peptides (DSK-I and DSK-II) expressed in the brain, including a small subset of neurosecretory cells in the pars intercerebralis. DSK signals through two receptors–CCKLR-17D1 (CG42301) and CCKLR-17D3 (CG32540)–with distinct expression patterns in the brain and ventral nerve cord [118,203206]. DSK neurons interact with sexually dimorphic dsx circuits to regulate mating behaviors in both sexes. In males, DSK-II suppresses sexual arousal via fruM-expressing neurons [125], whereas in females, DSK signaling modulates receptivity through the pC1-DSK-MP1-CCKLR-17D3 circuit [126]. In our screen, silencing DSK-expressing neurons significantly reduced egg-laying (Fig 2A and Table 3). Given DSK’s established role in mating behaviors and its co-expression in insulin-producing cells [117], this phenotype likely reflects indirect effects on reproductive output through altered mating efficiency or endocrine regulation.

SIFamide (SIFa) is produced by four large interneurons in the pars intercerebralis and exhibits extensive arborization throughout the adult CNS. Originally identified in flesh fly Neobellieria bullata, SIFa has conserved roles in feeding and reproduction and is functionally analogous to vertebrate gonadotropin-inhibitory hormone (GnIH) [180,207,208]. Using three previously validated CRISPR/Cas9-generated SIFa mutant lines [209], we observed increased egg-laying in one line, while the others showed no significant difference from wildtype controls (Fig 2D and Table 3). Although SIFa’s reproductive functions remain incompletely defined, SIFa neurons integrate sensory and internal signals to modulate courtship circuits. RNAi-mediated knockdown of SIFa or SIFaR induces male-male courtship and increases female receptivity by acting on fru-expressing neurons [177,179]. Recent work further implicates SIFa-SIFaR signaling, together with CRZ pathways, in regulating context-dependent mating interval timing [210]. These findings suggest that SIFa influences reproductive output through modulation of mating dynamics rather than direct effects on oogenesis.

Drosophila neuropeptides with potential role in reproduction

The findings above confirm known reproductive functions of several neuropeptides, validating the sensitivity of the assay. In addition, the screen identifies multiple neuropeptides with previously uncharacterized roles in reproduction.

Adipokinetic Hormone (AKH) is the insect functional homolog of mammalian glucagon, and plays a central role in regulating carbohydrates and lipid metabolism, thereby maintaining systemic energy homeostasis [211213]. AKH signaling is well positioned to influence reproductive output by coordinating nutrient availability with egg production. In Drosophila, AkhR has been shown to regulate sex-specific reproductive behaviors in response to nutritional state, including male courtship activity and female sexual receptivity under starvation [214,215]. In our screen, silencing AKH-expressing cells produced variable egg-laying phenotypes: one driver line showed no significant change (#25683), whereas the other (#25684) resulted in increased egg-laying (Fig 2C and Table 3), suggesting that AKH may modulate reproduction indirectly by influencing energy allocation between somatic maintenance and reproductive investment. These findings are consistent with AKH acting as a neurometabolic integrator linking nutrient state to reproductive physiology.

Allatostatin A (AstA) peptides were originally identified as inhibitors of JH synthesis, a hormone essential for vitellogenesis and ovarian maturation [216]. In Drosophila, AstA neurons regulate feeding, growth, foraging, sleep, and insulin signaling, and project to both central and peripheral tissues, including insulin-producing cells. AstA signaling has been proposed to act upstream of reproductive maturation through its homology to the mammalian kisspeptin system, which governs puberty onset [45]. In our study, AstA-GAL4 drivers showed strong expression in the adult brain and in two cases, innervation of the ovary (S1 File). However, silencing of AstA-expressing neurons resulted in variable egg-laying phenotypes (Fig 2C and Table 3), suggesting that AstA may contributes to reproduction either by directly controlling or indirectly by integrating metabolic, endocrine, and developmental cues [216].

Bursicon (Burs) is a cystine knot neurohormone composed of two subunits encoded by Burs (CG13419, Burs α) and pBurs (CG15284, Burs β) [6062]. It is primarily known for its role in post-eclosion cuticle tanning, and wing expansion [217220]; however, emerging evidence from other insects implicates bursicon signaling in ovarian maturation and vitellogenesis [221,222]. In Drosophila, the bursicon receptor rickets is expressed in ovarian tissues and has been linked to boarder cell migration [223]. In our screen, silencing bursicon-expressing neurons reduced egg-laying without affecting adult viability (Fig 2A and Table 3), supporting a previously underappreciated role for bursicon in reproductive output, potentially through modulation of JH signaling or ovarian tissue remodeling.

Capability (CAPA) peptides are a family of diuretic neuropeptides encoded by the Capa gene, which produces three distinct neuropeptides: two periviscerokinins (CAPA-PVK1 and CAPA-PVK2) and one pyrokinin (Capa-PK). These peptides act through two GPCRs: CapaR (CG14575), which primarily responds to PVK1 and PVK2, and PK1-R (CG9918), a predicted receptor of CAPA-PK. CAPA-expressing neurosecretory cells are located in the abdominal ganglia and project to the corpora cardiaca and other visceral organs regulate stress response, fluid balance, and visceral physiology through neuroendocrine signaling [6567]. While their direct role in Drosophila reproduction has not been defined, studies in other insects demonstrate that CAPA signaling influences egg production, hatching success, and survival rates [224]. In our screen, silencing of CAPA-expresssing cells significantly reduced in number of eggs laid despite the absence of ovarian expression, suggesting that CAPA peptides may act as indirect gonadotropic regulators, possibly by coordinating physiological state or stress responses with reproductive investment (Fig 2A, Table 3 and S1 File).

Crustacean Cardioactive Peptide (CCAP) is a conserved neuropeptide involved in ecdysis, cardiac regulation, and metabolic coordination. In Drosophila, CCAP neurons located in the brain and ventral nerve cord project to the reproductive tract [7578] and are co-expressed with other neuropeptides implicated in reproduction, including Burs and MIP [92,225,226]. In our screen, both CCAP-GAL4 lines showed reporter expression in the brain and ovaries (Table 3 and S1 File). However, silencing CCAP neurons reduced egg-laying in one driver line (#25685), indicating a potential reproductive role (Fig 2C and Table 3). CCAP may influence egg-laying indirectly through neuroendocrine signaling, regulation of muscle contractility in the reproductive tract, or coordination of metabolic state with reproductive timing.

Drosophila FMRFamide (dFMRFa) peptides are widely expressed neuromodulators that regulate neuromuscular activity, hormone release, and behavioral states [8792] (Table 2). Although not previously linked directly to oogenesis, dFMRFa-expressing neurons project to neurosecretory centers that control JH and ecdysteroid signaling, both of which are essential for egg production [9,227]. In our study, silencing dFMRFa neurons significantly reduced egg-laying (Fig 2A and Table 3), suggesting that these peptides may influence reproduction by modulating neuroendocrine pathways or reproductive tract physiology.

Leucokinin (LK) signaling integrates feeding behaviors, diuresis, stress responses, and locomotor activity [113,142152]. Recent studies have also implicated LK in regulating female sexual receptivity and post-mating behaviors [228230]. In our behavioral assay, silencing LK neurons produced inconsistent phenotypes across driver lines, likely reflecting context-dependent contributions of LK circuits (Fig 2C and Table 3). These results suggest that LK may influence reproductive output indirectly by coordinating internal physiological states and reproductive behavior rather than directly regulating oogenesis.

RYamide (RYa) is a recently identified neuropeptide with emerging roles in feeding suppression and water homeostasis [165,166]. Notably, in mosquitoes, RYa signaling coordinates feeding behavior with the gonadotrophic cycle by suppressing host-seeking following blood feeding and during egg development [231]. In Drosophila, we observed RYa expression specifically in mature oocytes (S1 File), and neuronal silencing significantly reduced egg-laying (Fig 2A and Table 3). These finding suggest that RYa may play a direct role in late-stage oocyte maturation or oviposition, identifying it as a strong candidate regulator of reproductive output.

Neuropeptides without detectable reproductive phenotypes

Allatostatin C (AstC) regulates vitellogenesis and reproductive dormancy by linking mating status and environmental cues to JH synthesis [55,56,58]. Despite these established roles, silencing AstC neurons did not alter egg-laying in our assay, suggesting that AstC may regulate reproductive state transitions rather than short-term egg production (Fig 2B and Table 3).

Pigment dispersing factor (PDF) primarily functions in circadian regulation and male courtship behavior [158,232]. The absence of an egg-laying phenotype following PDF silencing is consistent with its limited role in female reproductive output (Fig 2B and Table 3).

Ecdysis-triggering hormone (ETH) is essential for development and adult reproductive physiology, including ovary maturation and egg production [127132]. However, silencing ETH-expressing cells caused pupal lethality (Table 3), preventing assessment of adult reproductive phenotypes in this screen.

Conclusion

This study presents a systematic functional screen of neuropeptides in Drosophila reproduction using neurogenetic perturbation and egg-laying as an integrated quantitative readout. Multiple neuropeptides significantly altered egg-laying, supporting a broad involvement of neuropeptidergic signaling in reproductive output. Rather than assigning definitive roles to individual neuropeptides, our findings emphasize the complexity and context dependence of these pathways, with observed phenotypes likely arising from combined effects on germline function, neuroendocrine signaling, mating behavior, and systemic physiology.

A central outcome of this work is the substantial variability observed across independent GAL4 insertion lines targeting the same neuropeptide, including inconsistent or opposing egg-laying phenotypes and mismatches between expression patterns and functional effects. By explicitly reporting these discrepancies, we highlight key challenges in reagent selection and interpretation, and raise important questions regarding indirect mechanisms, circuit-level contributions, and developmental versus adult functions. Similarly, reproductive phenotypes observed in the absence of detectable brain or ovarian expression suggest that many neuropeptides influence egg-laying indirectly through higher-order neural circuits, endocrine pathways, or physiological state, underscoring that egg-laying reflects an integrative reproductive output rather than oogenesis alone.

While egg-laying provides a robust and scalable measure of reproductive function, it inherently limits mechanistic resolution. In addition, genetic perturbations applied throughout development and assessment at a single time point constrain interpretation of temporal dynamics and compensatory effects. Overall, this study defines a functional landscape of neuropeptide involvement in Drosophila reproduction and, importantly, surfaces critical methodological and conceptual questions for the field. By documenting both consistent and inconsistent outcomes, it provides a transparent resource to guide reagent choice, experimental design, and targeted mechanistic follow-up.

Supporting information

S1 File. Neuropeptide expression in the ovary.

Representative whole-mount ovary images showing NP-GAL4 > UAS-mCD8::GFP expression, immunostained with anti-GFP (green), DAPI (blue), phalloidin (red).

(PDF)

pone.0345918.s001.pdf (597.6KB, pdf)
S2 File. Raw egg-laying counts for all genotypes.

(XLSX)

pone.0345918.s002.xlsx (19.1KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Irene Miguel-Aliaga, Mani Ramaswami, and Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center for fly lines; Victoria L. Marlar and Diya Kashyap for assistance with fly pushing; and the Dartmouth Department of Biological Sciences Light Microscopy Facility for microscopy support. CM thanks Dartmouth’s Academic Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (ASURE) program. During preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGTP to assist with minor language edits to enhance clarity and readability. All content was subsequently reviewed and revised by the authors, who take full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the publication.

Data Availability

All raw datasets generated in this study are provided in the Supplemental information files. Further enquires can be directed to the corresponding authors: Madhumala.K.Sadanandappa@hitchcock.org (MKS) and Giovanni.Bosco@dartmouth.edu (GB).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program [LT000933/2017 to MKS] and the National Institute of Health [Pioneer grant 1DP1MH110234 to GB]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Burbach JPH. What are neuropeptides?. 2011. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-310-3_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jékely G. Global view of the evolution and diversity of metazoan neuropeptide signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(21):8702–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221833110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Russo AF. Overview of neuropeptides: awakening the senses?. Headache. 2017;57 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):37–46. doi: 10.1111/head.13084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Krabichler Q, Grinevich V. Evolution of neuropeptide signaling: From a single cell to mammals. Neuropeptide Signaling. 2025. p. 3–43. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-80209-6_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Nässel DR. A brief history of insect neuropeptide and peptide hormone research. Cell Tissue Res. 2025;399(2):129–59. doi: 10.1007/s00441-024-03936-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nässel DR, Zandawala M. Recent advances in neuropeptide signaling in Drosophila, from genes to physiology and behavior. Prog Neurobiol. 2019;179:101607. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2019.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nässel DR. Neuropeptides in the insect brain: a review. Cell Tissue Res. 1993;273(1):1–29. doi: 10.1007/BF00304608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hewes RS, Taghert PH. Neuropeptides and neuropeptide receptors in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Genome Res. 2001;11(6):1126–42. doi: 10.1101/gr.169901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nässel DR, Winther ÅME. Drosophila neuropeptides in regulation of physiology and behavior. Progress in Neurobiology. 2010. p. 42–104. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vanden Broeck J. Neuropeptides and their precursors in the fruitfly, Drosophila melanogaster. Peptides. 2001;22(2):241–54. doi: 10.1016/s0196-9781(00)00376-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schoofs L, De Loof A, Van Hiel MB. Neuropeptides as regulators of behavior in insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 2017;62:35–52. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Caers J, Verlinden H, Zels S, Vandersmissen HP, Vuerinckx K, Schoofs L. More than two decades of research on insect neuropeptide GPCRs: an overview. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2012;3:151. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2012.00151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jasienska G, Bribiescas RG, Furberg A-S, Helle S, Núñez-de la Mora A. Human reproduction and health: an evolutionary perspective. Lancet. 2017;390(10093):510–20. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30573-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Acevedo-Rodriguez A, Kauffman AS, Cherrington BD, Borges CS, Roepke TA, Laconi M. Emerging insights into hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis regulation and interaction with stress signalling. J Neuroendocrinol. 2018;30(10):e12590. doi: 10.1111/jne.12590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Saedi S, Khoradmehr A, Mohammad Reza JS, Tamadon A. The role of neuropeptides and neurotransmitters on kisspeptin/kiss1r-signaling in female reproduction. J Chem Neuroanat. 2018;92:71–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2018.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nässel DR, Winther AME. Drosophila neuropeptides in regulation of physiology and behavior. Prog Neurobiol. 2010;92(1):42–104. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Drummond-Barbosa D. Local and Physiological Control of Germline Stem Cell Lineages in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 2019;213(1):9–26. doi: 10.1534/genetics.119.300234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wessel EM, Drummond-Barbosa D. Insect oogenesis and its physiological control. Elsevier. 2025. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-95424-2.00053-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Martin J-R, Keller A, Sweeney ST. Targeted expression of tetanus toxin: a new tool to study the neurobiology of behavior. Adv Genet. 2002;47:1–47. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2660(02)47001-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sweeney ST, Broadie K, Keane J, Niemann H, O’Kane CJ. Targeted expression of tetanus toxin light chain in Drosophila specifically eliminates synaptic transmission and causes behavioral defects. Neuron. 1995;14(2):341–51. doi: 10.1016/0896-6273(95)90290-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ma T, Matsuoka S, Drummond-Barbosa D. RNAi-based screens uncover a potential new role for the orphan neuropeptide receptor Moody in Drosophila female germline stem cell maintenance. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0243756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243756 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sadanandappa MK, Bosco G. Protocol for studying parasitoid-induced long-term effects in Drosophila. STAR Protoc. 2024;5(4):103438. doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2024.103438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sadanandappa MK, Sathyanarayana SH, Kondo S, Bosco G. Neuropeptide F signaling regulates parasitoid-specific germline development and egg-laying in Drosophila. PLoS Genet. 2021;17(3):e1009456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009456 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sadanandappa M, Sathyanarayana S, Bosco G. Parasitoid Wasp Culturing and Assay to Study Parasitoid-induced Reproductive Modifications in Drosophila. BIO-PROTOCOL. 2023;13(0). doi: 10.21769/bioprotoc.4582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lee G, Park JH. Hemolymph sugar homeostasis and starvation-induced hyperactivity affected by genetic manipulations of the adipokinetic hormone-encoding gene in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 2004;167(1):311–23. doi: 10.1534/genetics.167.1.311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Isabel G, Martin J-R, Chidami S, Veenstra JA, Rosay P. AKH-producing neuroendocrine cell ablation decreases trehalose and induces behavioral changes in Drosophila. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2005;288(2):R531-8. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00158.2004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mochanová M, Tomčala A, Svobodová Z, Kodrík D. Role of adipokinetic hormone during starvation in Drosophila. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2018;226:26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpb.2018.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bednářová A, Tomčala A, Mochanová M, Kodrík D, Krishnan N. Disruption of Adipokinetic Hormone Mediated Energy Homeostasis Has Subtle Effects on Physiology, Behavior and Lipid Status During Aging in Drosophila. Front Physiol. 2018;9:949. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00949 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ibrahim E, Dobeš P, Kunc M, Hyršl P, Kodrík D. Adipokinetic hormone and adenosine interfere with nematobacterial infection and locomotion in Drosophila melanogaster. J Insect Physiol. 2018;107:167–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2018.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hughson BN, Shimell M, O’Connor MB. AKH signaling in D. melanogaster alters larval development in a nutrient-dependent manner that influences adult metabolism. Front Physiol. 2021;12. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.619219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Malita A, Kubrak O, Koyama T, Ahrentløv N, Texada MJ, Nagy S, et al. A gut-derived hormone suppresses sugar appetite and regulates food choice in Drosophila. Nat Metab. 2022;4(11):1532–50. doi: 10.1038/s42255-022-00672-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Grönke S, Müller G, Hirsch J, Fellert S, Andreou A, Haase T, et al. Dual lipolytic control of body fat storage and mobilization in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 2007;5(6):e137. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bharucha KN, Tarr P, Zipursky SL. A glucagon-like endocrine pathway in Drosophila modulates both lipid and carbohydrate homeostasis. J Exp Biol. 2008;211(Pt 19):3103–10. doi: 10.1242/jeb.016451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Waterson MJ, Chung BY, Harvanek ZM, Ostojic I, Alcedo J, Pletcher SD. Water sensor ppk28 modulates Drosophila lifespan and physiology through AKH signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(22):8137–42. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1315461111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gáliková M, Diesner M, Klepsatel P, Hehlert P, Xu Y, Bickmeyer I, et al. Energy Homeostasis Control in Drosophila Adipokinetic Hormone Mutants. Genetics. 2015;201(2):665–83. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.178897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bednářová A, Kodrík D, Krishnan N. Knockdown of adipokinetic hormone synthesis increases susceptibility to oxidative stress in Drosophila — A role for dFoxO? Comp Biochem Physiol Part C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;171: 8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpc.2015.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jourjine N, Mullaney BC, Mann K, Scott K. Coupled sensing of hunger and thirst signals balances sugar and water consumption. Cell. 2016;166:855–66. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yu Y, Huang R, Ye J, Zhang V, Wu C, Cheng G, et al. Regulation of starvation-induced hyperactivity by insulin and glucagon signaling in adult Drosophila. Elife. 2016;5:e15693. doi: 10.7554/eLife.15693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kučerová L, Kubrak OI, Bengtsson JM, Strnad H, Nylin S, Theopold U, et al. Slowed aging during reproductive dormancy is reflected in genome-wide transcriptome changes in Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Genomics. 2016;17:50. doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-2383-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hergarden AC, Tayler TD, Anderson DJ. Allatostatin-A neurons inhibit feeding behavior in adult Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(10):3967–72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200778109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hentze JL, Carlsson MA, Kondo S, Nässel DR, Rewitz KF. The Neuropeptide Allatostatin A Regulates Metabolism and Feeding Decisions in Drosophila. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11680. doi: 10.1038/srep11680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Yamagata N, Hiroi M, Kondo S, Abe A, Tanimoto H. Suppression of Dopamine Neurons Mediates Reward. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(12):e1002586. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chen J, Reiher W, Hermann-Luibl C, Sellami A, Cognigni P, Kondo S, et al. Allatostatin A Signalling in Drosophila Regulates Feeding and Sleep and Is Modulated by PDF. PLoS Genet. 2016;12(9):e1006346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Donlea JM, Pimentel D, Talbot CB, Kempf A, Omoto JJ, Hartenstein V, et al. Recurrent Circuitry for Balancing Sleep Need and Sleep. Neuron. 2018;97(2):378-389.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.12.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Deveci D, Martin FA, Leopold P, Romero NM. AstA Signaling Functions as an Evolutionary Conserved Mechanism Timing Juvenile to Adult Transition. Curr Biol. 2019;29(5):813-822.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.01.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Landayan D, Wang BP, Zhou J, Wolf FW. Thirst interneurons that promote water seeking and limit feeding behavior in Drosophila. eLife. 2021;10. doi: 10.7554/elife.66286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hussain A, Üçpunar HK, Zhang M, Loschek LF, Grunwald Kadow IC. Neuropeptides Modulate Female Chemosensory Processing upon Mating in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(5):e1002455. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kolodziejczyk A, Nässel DR. A novel wide-field neuron with branches in the lamina of the Drosophila visual system expresses myoinhibitory peptide and may be associated with the clock. Cell Tissue Res. 2011;343(2):357–69. doi: 10.1007/s00441-010-1100-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Oh Y, Yoon S-E, Zhang Q, Chae H-S, Daubnerová I, Shafer OT, et al. A homeostatic sleep-stabilizing pathway in Drosophila composed of the sex peptide receptor and its ligand, the myoinhibitory peptide. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(10):e1001974. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Min S, Chae H-S, Jang Y-H, Choi S, Lee S, Jeong YT, et al. Identification of a Peptidergic Pathway Critical to Satiety Responses in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2016;26(6):814–20. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.01.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Jang Y-H, Chae H-S, Kim Y-J. Female-specific myoinhibitory peptide neurons regulate mating receptivity in Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1630. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01794-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Scheunemann L, Lampin-Saint-Amaux A, Schor J, Preat T. A sperm peptide enhances long-term memory in female Drosophila. Sci Adv. 2019;5(11):eaax3432. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax3432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Shao L, Chung P, Wong A, Siwanowicz I, Kent CF, Long X, et al. A Neural Circuit Encoding the Experience of Copulation in Female Drosophila. Neuron. 2019;102(5):1025-1036.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.04.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Díaz MM, Schlichting M, Abruzzi KC, Long X, Rosbash M. Allatostatin-C/AstC-R2 Is a Novel Pathway to Modulate the Circadian Activity Pattern in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2019;29(1):13-22.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.11.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zhang C, Daubnerova I, Jang Y-H, Kondo S, Žitňan D, Kim Y-J. The neuropeptide allatostatin C from clock-associated DN1p neurons generates the circadian rhythm for oogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(4):e2016878118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2016878118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zhang C, Kim AJ, Rivera-Perez C, Noriega FG, Kim Y-J. The insect somatostatin pathway gates vitellogenesis progression during reproductive maturation and the post-mating response. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):969. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28592-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Liu X-Y, Yan R, Chen S-J, Zhang J-L, Xu H-J. Orco mutagenesis causes deficiencies in olfactory sensitivity and fertility in the migratory brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. Pest Manag Sci. 2023;79(3):1030–9. doi: 10.1002/ps.7286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Meiselman MR, Alpert MH, Cui X, Shea J, Gregg I, Gallio M, et al. Recovery from cold-induced reproductive dormancy is regulated by temperature-dependent AstC signaling. Curr Biol. 2022;32(6):1362-1375.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.01.061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Bachtel ND, Hovsepian GA, Nixon DF, Eleftherianos I. Allatostatin C modulates nociception and immunity in Drosophila. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):7501. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-25855-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Dewey EM, McNabb SL, Ewer J, Kuo GR, Takanishi CL, Truman JW, et al. Identification of the gene encoding bursicon, an insect neuropeptide responsible for cuticle sclerotization and wing spreading. Curr Biol. 2004;14(13):1208–13. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.06.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Mendive FM, Van Loy T, Claeysen S, Poels J, Williamson M, Hauser F, et al. Drosophila molting neurohormone bursicon is a heterodimer and the natural agonist of the orphan receptor DLGR2. FEBS Lett. 2005;579(10):2171–6. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2005.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Luo C-W, Dewey EM, Sudo S, Ewer J, Hsu SY, Honegger H-W, et al. Bursicon, the insect cuticle-hardening hormone, is a heterodimeric cystine knot protein that activates G protein-coupled receptor LGR2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(8):2820–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0409916102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Scopelliti A, Bauer C, Yu Y, Zhang T, Kruspig B, Murphy DJ, et al. A Neuronal Relay Mediates a Nutrient Responsive Gut/Fat Body Axis Regulating Energy Homeostasis in Adult Drosophila. Cell Metab. 2019;29(2):269-284.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.09.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Melnattur K, Zhang B, Shaw PJ. Disrupting flight increases sleep and identifies a novel sleep-promoting pathway in Drosophila. Sci Adv. 2020;6(19):eaaz2166. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz2166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kean L, Cazenave W, Costes L, Broderick KE, Graham S, Pollock VP, et al. Two nitridergic peptides are encoded by the gene capability in Drosophila melanogaster. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2002;282(5):R1297-307. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00584.2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Iversen A, Cazzamali G, Williamson M, Hauser F, Grimmelikhuijzen CJP. Molecular cloning and functional expression of a Drosophila receptor for the neuropeptides capa-1 and -2. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002;299(4):628–33. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(02)02709-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Terhzaz S, Cabrero P, Robben JH, Radford JC, Hudson BD, Milligan G, et al. Mechanism and function of Drosophila capa GPCR: a desiccation stress-responsive receptor with functional homology to human neuromedinU receptor. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29897. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Terhzaz S, Teets NM, Cabrero P, Henderson L, Ritchie MG, Nachman RJ, et al. Insect capa neuropeptides impact desiccation and cold tolerance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(9):2882–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1501518112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Pollock VP, McGettigan J, Cabrero P, Maudlin IM, Dow JAT, Davies S-A. Conservation of capa peptide-induced nitric oxide signalling in Diptera. J Exp Biol. 2004;207(Pt 23):4135–45. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Fujiwara Y, Hermann-Luibl C, Katsura M, Sekiguchi M, Ida T, Helfrich-Förster C, et al. The CCHamide1 Neuropeptide Expressed in the Anterior Dorsal Neuron 1 Conveys a Circadian Signal to the Ventral Lateral Neurons in Drosophila melanogaster. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1276. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kuwano R, Katsura M, Iwata M, Yokosako T, Yoshii T. Pigment-dispersing factor and CCHamide1 in the Drosophila circadian clock network. Chronobiol Int. 2023;40(3):284–99. doi: 10.1080/07420528.2023.2166416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Veenstra JA, Ida T. More Drosophila enteroendocrine peptides: Orcokinin B and the CCHamides 1 and 2. Cell Tissue Res. 2014;357(3):607–21. doi: 10.1007/s00441-014-1880-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Farhan A, Gulati J, Groβe-Wilde E, Vogel H, Hansson BS, Knaden M. The CCHamide 1 receptor modulates sensory perception and olfactory behavior in starved Drosophila. Sci Rep. 2013;3:2765. doi: 10.1038/srep02765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Hansen KK, Hauser F, Williamson M, Weber SB, Grimmelikhuijzen CJP. The Drosophila genes CG14593 and CG30106 code for G-protein-coupled receptors specifically activated by the neuropeptides CCHamide-1 and CCHamide-2. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2011;404(1):184–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.11.089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Park JH, Schroeder AJ, Helfrich-Förster C, Jackson FR, Ewer J. Targeted ablation of CCAP neuropeptide-containing neurons of Drosophila causes specific defects in execution and circadian timing of ecdysis behavior. Development. 2003;130(12):2645–56. doi: 10.1242/dev.00503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Cazzamali G, Hauser F, Kobberup S, Williamson M, Grimmelikhuijzen CJP. Molecular identification of a Drosophila G protein-coupled receptor specific for crustacean cardioactive peptide. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003;303(1):146–52. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(03)00302-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Dulcis D, Levine RB, Ewer J. Role of the neuropeptide CCAP in Drosophila cardiac function. J Neurobiol. 2005;64(3):259–74. doi: 10.1002/neu.20136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Williams MJ, Akram M, Barkauskaite D, Patil S, Kotsidou E, Kheder S, et al. CCAP regulates feeding behavior via the NPF pathway in Drosophila adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(13):7401–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1914037117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Zhao Y, Bretz CA, Hawksworth SA, Hirsh J, Johnson EC. Corazonin neurons function in sexually dimorphic circuitry that shape behavioral responses to stress in Drosophila. PLoS One. 2010;5(2):e9141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Tayler TD, Pacheco DA, Hergarden AC, Murthy M, Anderson DJ. A neuropeptide circuit that coordinates sperm transfer and copulation duration in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109:20697–702. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218246109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Kapan N, Lushchak OV, Luo J, Nässel DR. Identified peptidergic neurons in the Drosophila brain regulate insulin-producing cells, stress responses and metabolism by coexpressed short neuropeptide F and corazonin. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012;69(23):4051–66. doi: 10.1007/s00018-012-1097-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.McClure KD, Heberlein U. A small group of neurosecretory cells expressing the transcriptional regulator apontic and the neuropeptide corazonin mediate ethanol sedation in Drosophila. J Neurosci. 2013;33(9):4044–54. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3413-12.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Sha K, Choi S-H, Im J, Lee GG, Loeffler F, Park JH. Regulation of ethanol-related behavior and ethanol metabolism by the Corazonin neurons and Corazonin receptor in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e87062. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Kubrak OI, Lushchak OV, Zandawala M, Nässel DR. Systemic corazonin signalling modulates stress responses and metabolism in Drosophila. Open Biol. 2016;6(11):160152. doi: 10.1098/rsob.160152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Zer-Krispil S, Zak H, Shao L, Ben-Shaanan S, Tordjman L, Bentzur A, et al. Ejaculation Induced by the Activation of Crz Neurons Is Rewarding to Drosophila Males. Curr Biol. 2018;28(9):1445-1452.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Oyeyinka A, Kansal M, O’Sullivan SM, Gualtieri C, Smith ZM, Vonhoff FJ. Corazonin Neurons Contribute to Dimorphic Ethanol Sedation Sensitivity in Drosophila melanogaster. Front Neural Circuits. 2022;16:702901. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2022.702901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Lenz O, Xiong J, Nelson MD, Raizen DM, Williams JA. FMRFamide signaling promotes stress-induced sleep in Drosophila. Brain Behav Immun. 2015;47:141–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2014.12.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Nichols R. FMRFamide-related peptides and serotonin regulate Drosophila melanogaster heart rate: mechanisms and structure requirements. Peptides. 2006;27(5):1130–7. doi: 10.1016/j.peptides.2005.07.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Clark J, Milakovic M, Cull A, Klose MK, Mercier AJ. Evidence for postsynaptic modulation of muscle contraction by a Drosophila neuropeptide. Peptides. 2008;29(7):1140–9. doi: 10.1016/j.peptides.2008.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Ravi P, Trivedi D, Hasan G. FMRFa receptor stimulated Ca2+ signals alter the activity of flight modulating central dopaminergic neurons in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 2018;14(8):e1007459. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007459 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Song T, Qin W, Lai Z, Li H, Li D, Wang B, et al. Dietary cysteine drives body fat loss via FMRFamide signaling in Drosophila and mouse. Cell Res. 2023;33(6):434–47. doi: 10.1038/s41422-023-00800-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Kim Y-J, Zitnan D, Galizia CG, Cho K-H, Adams ME. A command chemical triggers an innate behavior by sequential activation of multiple peptidergic ensembles. Curr Biol. 2006;16(14):1395–407. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.06.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Coast GM, Webster SG, Schegg KM, Tobe SS, Schooley DA. The Drosophila melanogaster homologue of an insect calcitonin-like diuretic peptide stimulates V-ATPase activity in fruit fly Malpighian tubules. J Exp Biol. 2001;204(Pt 10):1795–804. doi: 10.1242/jeb.204.10.1795 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.LaJeunesse DR, Johnson B, Presnell JS, Catignas KK, Zapotoczny G. Peristalsis in the junction region of the Drosophila larval midgut is modulated by DH31 expressing enteroendocrine cells. BMC Physiol. 2010;10:14. doi: 10.1186/1472-6793-10-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Kunst M, Hughes ME, Raccuglia D, Felix M, Li M, Barnett G, et al. Calcitonin gene-related peptide neurons mediate sleep-specific circadian output in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2014;24(22):2652–64. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.09.077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Goda T, Tang X, Umezaki Y, Chu ML, Kunst M, Nitabach MN, et al. Drosophila DH31 Neuropeptide and PDF Receptor Regulate Night-Onset Temperature Preference. J Neurosci. 2016;36(46):11739–54. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0964-16.2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Benguettat O, Jneid R, Soltys J, Loudhaief R, Brun-Barale A, Osman D, et al. The DH31/CGRP enteroendocrine peptide triggers intestinal contractions favoring the elimination of opportunistic bacteria. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(9):e1007279. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007279 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Goda T, Umezaki Y, Alwattari F, Seo HW, Hamada FN. Neuropeptides PDF and DH31 hierarchically regulate free-running rhythmicity in Drosophila circadian locomotor activity. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):838. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37107-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Lin H-H, Kuang MC, Hossain I, Xuan Y, Beebe L, Shepherd AK, et al. A nutrient-specific gut hormone arbitrates between courtship and feeding. Nature. 2022;602(7898):632–8. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04408-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Lyu S, Terao N, Nakashima H, Itoh M, Tonoki A. Neuropeptide diuretic hormone 31 mediates memory and sleep via distinct neural pathways in Drosophila. Neurosci Res. 2023;192:11–25. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2023.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Frantzmann F, Lamberty M, Braune L, Auger GM, Chouhan NS, Langenhan T. Neuronal correlates of time integration into memories. 2023. 10.1101/2023.09.12.557375 [DOI]
  • 102.Kurogi Y, Imura E, Mizuno Y, Hoshino R, Nouzova M, Matsuyama S, et al. Female reproductive dormancy in Drosophila is regulated by DH31-producing neurons projecting into the corpus allatum. Development. 2023;150(10):dev201186. doi: 10.1242/dev.201186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Cavanaugh DJ, Geratowski JD, Wooltorton JRA, Spaethling JM, Hector CE, Zheng X, et al. Identification of a circadian output circuit for rest:activity rhythms in Drosophila. Cell. 2014;157(3):689–701. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Dus M, Lai JS-Y, Gunapala KM, Min S, Tayler TD, Hergarden AC, et al. Nutrient Sensor in the Brain Directs the Action of the Brain-Gut Axis in Drosophila. Neuron. 2015;87(1):139–51. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.05.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Poe AR, Zhu L, Tang SH, Valencia E, Kayser MS. Energetic demands regulate sleep-wake rhythm circuit development. 2024. 10.7554/eLife.97256.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 106.Francés R, Rabah Y, Preat T, Plaçais P-Y. Diverting glial glycolytic flux towards neurons is a memory-relevant role of Drosophila CRH-like signalling. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):10467. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-54778-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Kim D-H, Jang Y-H, Yun M, Lee K-M, Kim Y-J. Long-term neuropeptide modulation of female sexual drive via the TRP channel in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;121(10):e2310841121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2310841121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Nath DK, Dhakal S, Lee Y. TRPγ regulates lipid metabolism through Dh44 neuroendocrine cells. Elife. 2025;13:RP99258. doi: 10.7554/eLife.99258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Lee K-M, Daubnerová I, Isaac RE, Zhang C, Choi S, Chung J, et al. A neuronal pathway that controls sperm ejection and storage in female Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2015;25(6):790–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Cannell E, Dornan AJ, Halberg KA, Terhzaz S, Dow JAT, Davies S-A. The corticotropin-releasing factor-like diuretic hormone 44 (DH44) and kinin neuropeptides modulate desiccation and starvation tolerance in Drosophila melanogaster. Peptides. 2016;80:96–107. doi: 10.1016/j.peptides.2016.02.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.King AN, Barber AF, Smith AE, Dreyer AP, Sitaraman D, Nitabach MN, et al. A Peptidergic Circuit Links the Circadian Clock to Locomotor Activity. Curr Biol. 2017;27(13):1915-1927.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Yang Z, Huang R, Fu X, Wang G, Qi W, Mao D, et al. A post-ingestive amino acid sensor promotes food consumption in Drosophila. Cell Res. 2018;28(10):1013–25. doi: 10.1038/s41422-018-0084-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Zandawala M, Marley R, Davies SA, Nässel DR. Characterization of a set of abdominal neuroendocrine cells that regulate stress physiology using colocalized diuretic peptides in Drosophila. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2018;75(6):1099–115. doi: 10.1007/s00018-017-2682-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Dhakal S, Ren Q, Liu J, Akitake B, Tekin I, Montell C, et al. Drosophila TRPγ is required in neuroendocrine cells for post-ingestive food selection. Elife. 2022;11:e56726. doi: 10.7554/eLife.56726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Jiang X, Sun M, Chen J, Pan Y. Sex-Specific and State-Dependent Neuromodulation Regulates Male and Female Locomotion and Sexual Behaviors. Research (Wash D C). 2024;7:0321. doi: 10.34133/research.0321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Kim S-J, Lee K-M, Park SH, Yang T, Song I, Rai F, et al. A sexually transmitted sugar orchestrates reproductive responses to nutritional stress. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):8477. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52807-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Söderberg JAE, Carlsson MA, Nässel DR. Insulin-Producing Cells in the Drosophila Brain also Express Satiety-Inducing Cholecystokinin-Like Peptide, Drosulfakinin. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2012;3:109. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2012.00109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Chen X, Peterson J, Nachman RJ, Ganetzky B. Drosulfakinin activates CCKLR-17D1 and promotes larval locomotion and escape response in Drosophila. Fly (Austin). 2012;6(4):290–7. doi: 10.4161/fly.21534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Agrawal P, Kao D, Chung P, Looger LL. The neuropeptide Drosulfakinin regulates social isolation-induced aggression in Drosophila. J Exp Biol. 2020;223(Pt 2):jeb207407. doi: 10.1242/jeb.207407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Wu F, Deng B, Xiao N, Wang T, Li Y, Wang R, et al. A neuropeptide regulates fighting behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Elife. 2020;9:e54229. doi: 10.7554/eLife.54229 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Guo D, Zhang Y-J, Zhang S, Li J, Guo C, Pan Y-F, et al. Cholecystokinin-like peptide mediates satiety by inhibiting sugar attraction. PLoS Genet. 2021;17(8):e1009724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Oikawa I, Kondo S, Hashimoto K, Yoshida A, Hamajima M, Tanimoto H, et al. A descending inhibitory mechanism of nociception mediated by an evolutionarily conserved neuropeptide system in Drosophila. eLife. 2023;12. doi: 10.7554/elife.85760.3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Fedina TY, Cummins ET, Promislow DEL, Pletcher SD. The neuropeptide drosulfakinin enhances choosiness and protects males from the aging effects of social perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023;120(51):e2308305120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2308305120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Jeong J, Kwon K, Geisseova TK, Lee J, Kwon T, Lim C. Drosulfakinin signaling encodes early-life memory for adaptive social plasticity. Elife. 2024;13:e103973. doi: 10.7554/eLife.103973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Wu S, Guo C, Zhao H, Sun M, Chen J, Han C, et al. Drosulfakinin signaling in fruitless circuitry antagonizes P1 neurons to regulate sexual arousal in Drosophila. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):4770. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12758-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Wang T, Jing B, Deng B, Shi K, Li J, Ma B, et al. Drosulfakinin signaling modulates female sexual receptivity in Drosophila. eLife. 2022;11. doi: 10.7554/elife.76025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Park Y, Zitnan D, Gill SS, Adams ME. Molecular cloning and biological activity of ecdysis-triggering hormones in Drosophila melanogaster. FEBS Lett. 1999;463(1–2):133–8. doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(99)01622-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Meiselman M, Lee SS, Tran R-T, Dai H, Ding Y, Rivera-Perez C, et al. Endocrine network essential for reproductive success in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(19):E3849–58. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1620760114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Meiselman MR, Kingan TG, Adams ME. Stress-induced reproductive arrest in Drosophila occurs through ETH deficiency-mediated suppression of oogenesis and ovulation. BMC Biol. 2018;16(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12915-018-0484-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Lee SS, Ding Y, Karapetians N, Rivera-Perez C, Noriega FG, Adams ME. Hormonal Signaling Cascade during an Early-Adult Critical Period Required for Courtship Memory Retention in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2017;27(18):2798-2809.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.08.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Lee SS, Adams ME. Regulation of Drosophila Long-Term Courtship Memory by Ecdysis Triggering Hormone. Front Neurosci. 2021;15:670322. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.670322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Meiselman MR, Ganguly A, Dahanukar A, Adams ME. Endocrine modulation of primary chemosensory neurons regulates Drosophila courtship behavior. PLoS Genet. 2022;18(8):e1010357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Horodyski FM, Ewer J, Riddiford LM, Truman JW. Isolation, characterization and expression of the eclosion hormone gene of Drosophila melanogaster. Eur J Biochem. 1993;215(2):221–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1993.tb18026.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Krüger E, Mena W, Lahr EC, Johnson EC, Ewer J. Genetic analysis of Eclosion hormone action during Drosophila larval ecdysis. Development. 2015;142(24):4279–87. doi: 10.1242/dev.126995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.McNabb SL, Baker JD, Agapite J, Steller H, Riddiford LM, Truman JW. Disruption of a behavioral sequence by targeted death of peptidergic neurons in Drosophila. Neuron. 1997;19(4):813–23. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80963-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Choi MY, Rafaeli A, Jurenka RA. Pyrokinin/PBAN-like peptides in the central nervous system of Drosophila melanogaster. Cell Tissue Res. 2001;306(3):459–65. doi: 10.1007/s00441-001-0467-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Melcher C, Pankratz MJ. Candidate gustatory interneurons modulating feeding behavior in the Drosophila brain. PLoS Biol. 2005;3(9):e305. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Bader R, Colomb J, Pankratz B, Schröck A, Stocker RF, Pankratz MJ. Genetic dissection of neural circuit anatomy underlying feeding behavior in Drosophila: distinct classes of hugin-expressing neurons. J Comp Neurol. 2007;502(5):848–56. doi: 10.1002/cne.21342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Schlegel P, Texada MJ, Miroschnikow A, Schoofs A, Hückesfeld S, Peters M, et al. Synaptic transmission parallels neuromodulation in a central food-intake circuit. Elife. 2016;5:e16799. doi: 10.7554/eLife.16799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Surendran S, Hückesfeld S, Wäschle B, Pankratz MJ. Pathogen-induced food evasion behavior in Drosophila larvae. J Exp Biol. 2017;220(Pt 10):1774–80. doi: 10.1242/jeb.153395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Schwarz JE, King AN, Hsu CT, Barber AF, Sehgal A. Hugin+ neurons provide a link between sleep homeostat and circadian clock neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(47):e2111183118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2111183118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.López-Arias B, Dorado B, Herrero P. Blockade of the release of the neuropeptide leucokinin to determine its possible functions in fly behavior: chemoreception assays. Peptides. 2011;32(3):545–52. doi: 10.1016/j.peptides.2010.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Senapati B, Tsao C-H, Juan Y-A, Chiu T-H, Wu C-L, Waddell S, et al. A neural mechanism for deprivation state-specific expression of relevant memories in Drosophila. Nat Neurosci. 2019;22(12):2029–39. doi: 10.1038/s41593-019-0515-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Li K, Tsukasa Y, Kurio M, Maeta K, Tsumadori A, Baba S, et al. Belly roll, a GPI-anchored Ly6 protein, regulates Drosophila melanogaster escape behaviors by modulating the excitability of nociceptive peptidergic interneurons. Elife. 2023;12:e83856. doi: 10.7554/eLife.83856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Al-Anzi B, Armand E, Nagamei P, Olszewski M, Sapin V, Waters C, et al. The leucokinin pathway and its neurons regulate meal size in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2010;20(11):969–78. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.04.039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Okusawa S, Kohsaka H, Nose A. Serotonin and downstream leucokinin neurons modulate larval turning behavior in Drosophila. J Neurosci. 2014;34(7):2544–58. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3500-13.2014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Liu Y, Luo J, Carlsson MA, Nässel DR. Serotonin and insulin-like peptides modulate leucokinin-producing neurons that affect feeding and water homeostasis in Drosophila. J Comp Neurol. 2015;523(12):1840–63. doi: 10.1002/cne.23768 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Cavey M, Collins B, Bertet C, Blau J. Circadian rhythms in neuronal activity propagate through output circuits. Nat Neurosci. 2016;19(4):587–95. doi: 10.1038/nn.4263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Zandawala M, Yurgel ME, Texada MJ, Liao S, Rewitz KF, Keene AC, et al. Modulation of Drosophila post-feeding physiology and behavior by the neuropeptide leucokinin. PLoS Genet. 2018;14(11):e1007767. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Kim D-H, Kim Y-J, Adams ME. Endocrine regulation of airway clearance in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(7):1535–40. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1717257115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Ohashi H, Sakai T. Leucokinin signaling regulates hunger-driven reduction of behavioral responses to noxious heat in Drosophila. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2018;499(2):221–6. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2018.03.132 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Yurgel ME, Kakad P, Zandawala M, Nässel DR, Godenschwege TA, Keene AC. A single pair of leucokinin neurons are modulated by feeding state and regulate sleep-metabolism interactions. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(2):e2006409. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Dickerson M, McCormick J, Mispelon M, Paisley K, Nichols R. Structure-activity and immunochemical data provide evidence of developmental- and tissue-specific myosuppressin signaling. Peptides. 2012;36(2):272–9. doi: 10.1016/j.peptides.2012.05.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Kiss B, Szlanka T, Zvara Á, Žurovec M, Sery M, Kakaš Š, et al. Selective elimination/RNAi silencing of FMRF-related peptides and their receptors decreases the locomotor activity in Drosophila melanogaster. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2013;191:137–45. doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2013.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Hadjieconomou D, King G, Gaspar P, Mineo A, Blackie L, Ameku T, et al. Enteric neurons increase maternal food intake during reproduction. Nature. 2020;587(7834):455–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2866-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Renn SC, Park JH, Rosbash M, Hall JC, Taghert PH. A pdf neuropeptide gene mutation and ablation of PDF neurons each cause severe abnormalities of behavioral circadian rhythms in Drosophila. Cell. 1999;99(7):791–802. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81676-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Pírez N, Christmann BL, Griffith LC. Daily rhythms in locomotor circuits in Drosophila involve PDF. J Neurophysiol. 2013;110(3):700–8. doi: 10.1152/jn.00126.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Kim WJ, Jan LY, Jan YN. A PDF/NPF neuropeptide signaling circuitry of male Drosophila melanogaster controls rival-induced prolonged mating. Neuron. 2013;80(5):1190–205. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Krupp JJ, Billeter J-C, Wong A, Choi C, Nitabach MN, Levine JD. Pigment-dispersing factor modulates pheromone production in clock cells that influence mating in drosophila. Neuron. 2013;79(1):54–68. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.05.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160.Liang X, Holy TE, Taghert PH. A Series of Suppressive Signals within the Drosophila Circadian Neural Circuit Generates Sequential Daily Outputs. Neuron. 2017;94(6):1173-1189.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161.Talsma AD, Christov CP, Terriente-Felix A, Linneweber GA, Perea D, Wayland M, et al. Remote control of renal physiology by the intestinal neuropeptide pigment-dispersing factor in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(30):12177–82. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200247109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Anderson MS, Halpern ME, Keshishian H. Identification of the neuropeptide transmitter proctolin in Drosophila larvae: characterization of muscle fiber-specific neuromuscular endings. J Neurosci. 1988;8(1):242–55. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.08-01-00242.1988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Taylor CAM, Winther AME, Siviter RJ, Shirras AD, Isaac RE, Nässel DR. Identification of a proctolin preprohormone gene (Proct) of Drosophila melanogaster: expression and predicted prohormone processing. J Neurobiol. 2004;58(3):379–91. doi: 10.1002/neu.10301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.Ormerod KG, LePine OK, Bhutta MS, Jung J, Tattersall GJ, Mercier AJ. Characterizing the physiological and behavioral roles of proctolin in Drosophila melanogaster. J Neurophysiol. 2016;115(1):568–80. doi: 10.1152/jn.00606.2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165.Ida T, Takahashi T, Tominaga H, Sato T, Kume K, Ozaki M, et al. Identification of the novel bioactive peptides dRYamide-1 and dRYamide-2, ligands for a neuropeptide Y-like receptor in Drosophila. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2011;410(4):872–7. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.06.081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Veenstra JA, Khammassi H. Rudimentary expression of RYamide in Drosophila melanogaster relative to other Drosophila species points to a functional decline of this neuropeptide gene. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2017;83:68–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2017.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167.Mertens I, Meeusen T, Huybrechts R, De Loof A, Schoofs L. Characterization of the short neuropeptide F receptor from Drosophila melanogaster. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002;297(5):1140–8. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(02)02351-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 168.Inagaki HK, Panse KM, Anderson DJ. Independent, reciprocal neuromodulatory control of sweet and bitter taste sensitivity during starvation in Drosophila. Neuron. 2014;84(4):806–20. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.09.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 169.de Tredern E, Manceau D, Blanc A, Sakagiannis P, Barre C, Sus V, et al. Feeding-state dependent neuropeptidergic modulation of reciprocally interconnected inhibitory neurons biases sensorimotor decisions in Drosophila. 2023. 10.1101/2023.12.26.573306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 170.Lee K-S, Kwon O-Y, Lee JH, Kwon K, Min K-J, Jung S-A, et al. Drosophila short neuropeptide F signalling regulates growth by ERK-mediated insulin signalling. Nat Cell Biol. 2008;10(4):468–75. doi: 10.1038/ncb1710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171.Kahsai L, Martin JR, Winther ÅME. Neuropeptides in the Drosophila central complex in modulation of locomotor behavior. J Exp Biol. 2010;213:2256–65. doi: 10.1242/jeb.043190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172.Hong SH, Lee KS, Kwak SJ, Kim AK, Bai H, Jung MS, et al. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1002857. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 173.Carlsson MA, Enell LE, Nässel DR. Distribution of short neuropeptide F and its receptor in neuronal circuits related to feeding in larval Drosophila. Cell Tissue Res. 2013;353(3):511–23. doi: 10.1007/s00441-013-1660-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 174.Chen W, Shi W, Li L, Zheng Z, Li T, Bai W, et al. Regulation of sleep by the short neuropeptide F (sNPF) in Drosophila melanogaster. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2013;43(9):809–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2013.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175.Knapek S, Kahsai L, Winther AME, Tanimoto H, Nässel DR. Short neuropeptide F acts as a functional neuromodulator for olfactory memory in Kenyon cells of Drosophila mushroom bodies. J Neurosci. 2013;33(12):5340–5. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2287-12.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176.Shang Y, Donelson NC, Vecsey CG, Guo F, Rosbash M, Griffith LC. Short neuropeptide F is a sleep-promoting inhibitory modulator. Neuron. 2013;80(1):171–83. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177.Terhzaz S, Rosay P, Goodwin SF, Veenstra JA. The neuropeptide SIFamide modulates sexual behavior in Drosophila. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007;352(2):305–10. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2006.11.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 178.Park S, Sonn JY, Oh Y, Lim C, Choe J. SIFamide and SIFamide receptor defines a novel neuropeptide signaling to promote sleep in Drosophila. Mol Cells. 2014;37(4):295–301. doi: 10.14348/molcells.2014.2371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 179.Sellami A, Veenstra JA. SIFamide acts on fruitless neurons to modulate sexual behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Peptides. 2015;74:50–6. doi: 10.1016/j.peptides.2015.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180.Martelli C, Pech U, Kobbenbring S, Pauls D, Bahl B, Sommer MV, et al. SIFamide Translates Hunger Signals into Appetitive and Feeding Behavior in Drosophila. Cell Rep. 2017;20(2):464–78. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.06.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 181.Dreyer AP, Martin MM, Fulgham CV, Jabr DA, Bai L, Beshel J, et al. A circadian output center controlling feeding:fasting rhythms in Drosophila. PLoS Genet. 2019;15(11):e1008478. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 182.Huang H, Possidente DR, Vecsey CG. Optogenetic activation of SIFamide (SIFa) neurons induces a complex sleep-promoting effect in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Physiol Behav. 2021;239:113507. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2021.113507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 183.Im SH, Takle K, Jo J, Babcock DT, Ma Z, Xiang Y, et al. Tachykinin acts upstream of autocrine Hedgehog signaling during nociceptive sensitization in Drosophila. Elife. 2015. doi: 10.7554/eLife.10735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 184.Shankar S, Chua JY, Tan KJ, Calvert MEK, Weng R, Ng WC, et al. The neuropeptide tachykinin is essential for pheromone detection in a gustatory neural circuit. Elife. 2015;4:e06914. doi: 10.7554/eLife.06914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 185.Ko KI, Root CM, Lindsay SA, Zaninovich OA, Shepherd AK, Wasserman SA, et al. Starvation promotes concerted modulation of appetitive olfactory behavior via parallel neuromodulatory circuits. Elife. 2015;4:e08298. doi: 10.7554/eLife.08298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 186.Conroy JM, Pabla S, Glenn ST, Seager RJ, Van Roey E, Gao S, et al. A scalable high-throughput targeted next-generation sequencing assay for comprehensive genomic profiling of solid tumors. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260089. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 187.Gu P, Wang F, Shang Y, Liu J, Gong J, Xie W, et al. Nociception and hypersensitivity involve distinct neurons and molecular transducers in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(12):e2113645119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2113645119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 188.Wohl MP, Liu J, Asahina K. Drosophila Tachykininergic Neurons Modulate the Activity of Two Groups of Receptor-Expressing Neurons to Regulate Aggressive Tone. J Neurosci. 2023;43(19):3394–420. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1734-22.2023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 189.Zhao H, Jiang X, Ma M, Xing L, Ji X, Pan Y. A neural pathway for social modulation of spontaneous locomotor activity (SoMo-SLA) in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;121(9):e2314393121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2314393121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 190.Brand AH, Perrimon N. Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development. 1993;118(2):401–15. doi: 10.1242/dev.118.2.401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 191.Spradling AC. Developmental genetics of oogenesis. In: Bate M, Martinez-Arias A, editors. The Development of Drosophila melanogaster. Cold Spring Harbor Press. 1993. p. 1–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 192.Williamson M, Lenz C, Winther AM, Nässel DR, Grimmelikhuijzen CJ. Molecular cloning, genomic organization, and expression of a B-type (cricket-type) allatostatin preprohormone from Drosophila melanogaster. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001;281(2):544–50. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2001.4402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 193.Kubli E. Sex-peptides: seminal peptides of the Drosophila male. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2003;60(8):1689–704. doi: 10.1007/s00018-003-3052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 194.Kim Y-J, Bartalska K, Audsley N, Yamanaka N, Yapici N, Lee J-Y, et al. MIPs are ancestral ligands for the sex peptide receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(14):6520–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914764107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 195.Poels J, Van Loy T, Vandersmissen HP, Van Hiel B, Van Soest S, Nachman RJ, et al. Myoinhibiting peptides are the ancestral ligands of the promiscuous Drosophila sex peptide receptor. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2010;67(20):3511–22. doi: 10.1007/s00018-010-0393-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 196.Veenstra JA. Isolation and structure of the Drosophila corazonin gene. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1994;204(1):292–6. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1994.2458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 197.Choi YJ, Lee G, Hall JC, Park JH. Comparative analysis of Corazonin-encoding genes (Crz’s) in Drosophila species and functional insights into Crz-expressing neurons. J Comp Neurol. 2005;482(4):372–85. doi: 10.1002/cne.20419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 198.Lee G, Kim K-M, Kikuno K, Wang Z, Choi Y-J, Park JH. Developmental regulation and functions of the expression of the neuropeptide corazonin in Drosophila melanogaster. Cell Tissue Res. 2008;331(3):659–73. doi: 10.1007/s00441-007-0549-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 199.Cazzamali G, Saxild N, Grimmelikhuijzen C. Molecular cloning and functional expression of a Drosophila corazonin receptor. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002;298(1):31–6. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(02)02398-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 200.Imura E, Shimada-Niwa Y, Nishimura T, Hückesfeld S, Schlegel P, Ohhara Y, et al. The Corazonin-PTTH Neuronal Axis Controls Systemic Body Growth by Regulating Basal Ecdysteroid Biosynthesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol. 2020;30(11):2156-2165.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.03.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 201.Cabrero P, Radford JC, Broderick KE, Costes L, Veenstra JA, Spana EP, et al. The Dh gene of Drosophila melanogaster encodes a diuretic peptide that acts through cyclic AMP. J Exp Biol. 2002;205(Pt 24):3799–807. doi: 10.1242/jeb.205.24.3799 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 202.Hector CE, Bretz CA, Zhao Y, Johnson EC. Functional differences between two CRF-related diuretic hormone receptors in Drosophila. J Exp Biol. 2009;212(19):3142–7. doi: 10.1242/jeb.033175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 203.Nichols R, Schneuwly SA, Dixon JE. Identification and characterization of a Drosophila homologue to the vertebrate neuropeptide cholecystokinin. J Biol Chem. 1988;263(25):12167–70. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9258(18)37731-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 204.Nichols R, Lim IA. Spatial and temporal immunocytochemical analysis of drosulfakinin (Dsk) gene products in the Drosophila melanogaster central nervous system. Cell Tissue Res. 1996;283(1):107–16. doi: 10.1007/s004410050518 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 205.Kubiak TM, Larsen MJ, Burton KJ, Bannow CA, Martin RA, Zantello MR, et al. Cloning and functional expression of the first Drosophila melanogaster sulfakinin receptor DSK-R1. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002;291(2):313–20. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2002.6459 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 206.Nässel DR, Wu S-F. Cholecystokinin/sulfakinin peptide signaling: conserved roles at the intersection between feeding, mating and aggression. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2022;79(3):188. doi: 10.1007/s00018-022-04214-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 207.Janssen I, Schoofs L, Spittaels K, Neven H, Vanden Broeck J, Devreese B, et al. Isolation of NEB-LFamide, a novel myotropic neuropeptide from the grey fleshfly. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1996;117(2):157–65. doi: 10.1016/0303-7207(95)03746-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 208.Verleyen P, Huybrechts J, Baggerman G, Van Lommel A, De Loof A, Schoofs L. SIFamide is a highly conserved neuropeptide: a comparative study in different insect species. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004;320(2):334–41. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.05.173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 209.Bai L, Lee Y, Hsu CT, Williams JA, Cavanaugh D, Zheng X. A Conserved Circadian Function for the Neurofibromatosis 1 Gene. Cell Reports. 2018;22:3416–26. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 210.Zhang T, Wu Z, Song Y, Ryu TH, Zhang X, Li W, et al. Neuropeptide-mediated synaptic plasticity regulates context-dependent mating behaviors in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 2025;23(9):e3003330. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 211.Schaffer MH, Noyes BE, Slaughter CA, Thorne GC, Gaskell SJ. The fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster contains a novel charged adipokinetic-hormone-family peptide. Biochem J. 1990;269(2):315–20. doi: 10.1042/bj2690315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 212.Noyes BE, Katz FN, Schaffer MH. Identification and expression of the Drosophila adipokinetic hormone gene. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1995;109(2):133–41. doi: 10.1016/0303-7207(95)03492-p [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 213.Ben-Menahem D. GnRH-Related Neurohormones in the Fruit Fly Drosophila melanogaster. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(9):5035. doi: 10.3390/ijms22095035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 214.Lebreton S, Mansourian S, Bigarreau J, Dekker T. The adipokinetic hormone receptor modulates sexual behavior, pheromone perception and pheromone production in a sex-specific and starvation-dependent manner in Drosophila melanogaster. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2016;3. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2015.00151 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 215.Sun M, Ma M, Deng B, Li N, Peng Q, Pan Y. A neural pathway underlying hunger modulation of sexual receptivity in Drosophila females. Cell Rep. 2023;42(10):113243. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 216.Wegener C, Chen J. Allatostatin A Signalling: Progress and New Challenges From a Paradigmatic Pleiotropic Invertebrate Neuropeptide Family. Front Physiol. 2022;13:920529. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.920529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 217.Luan H, Lemon WC, Peabody NC, Pohl JB, Zelensky PK, Wang D, et al. Functional dissection of a neuronal network required for cuticle tanning and wing expansion in Drosophila. J Neurosci. 2006;26(2):573–84. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3916-05.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 218.An S, Wang S, Gilbert LI, Beerntsen B, Ellersieck M, Song Q. Global identification of bursicon-regulated genes in Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:424. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 219.Peabody NC, Diao F, Luan H, Wang H, Dewey EM, Honegger H-W, et al. Bursicon functions within the Drosophila CNS to modulate wing expansion behavior, hormone secretion, and cell death. J Neurosci. 2008;28(53):14379–91. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2842-08.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 220.Loveall BJ, Deitcher DL. The essential role of bursicon during Drosophila development. BMC Dev Biol. 2010;10:92. doi: 10.1186/1471-213X-10-92 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 221.Li J, Zhu Z, Bi J, Feng Q, Beerntsen BT, Song Q. Neuropeptide Bursicon Influences Reproductive Physiology in Tribolium Castaneum. Front Physiol. 2021;12:717437. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.717437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 222.Yu H, Yang B, Wang L, Wang S, Wang K, Song Q, et al. Neuropeptide hormone bursicon mediates female reproduction in the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1277439. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1277439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 223.Anllo L, Schüpbach T. Signaling through the G-protein-coupled receptor Rickets is important for polarity, detachment, and migration of the border cells in Drosophila. Dev Biol. 2016;414(2):193–206. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.04.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 224.Al-Dailami AN, Orchard I, Lange AB. RhoprCAPA-2 acts as a gonadotropin regulating reproduction in adult female, Rhodnius prolixus. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2024;358:114611. doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2024.114611 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 225.Woodruff EA 3rd, Broadie K, Honegger H-W. Two peptide transmitters co-packaged in a single neurosecretory vesicle. Peptides. 2008;29(12):2276–80. doi: 10.1016/j.peptides.2008.08.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 226.Veelaert D, Schoofs L, De Loof A. Peptidergic control of the corpus cardiacum-corpora allata complex of locusts. 1998. p. 249–302. 10.1016/S0074-7696(08)62171-3 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 227.Nichols R, McCormick J, Lim I, Caserta L. Cellular expression of the Drosophila melanogaster FMRFamide neuropeptide gene product DPKQDFMRFamide. J Mol Neurosci. 1995;6:1–10. doi: 10.1007/BF02736754 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 228.Liu C, Zhang B, Zhang L, Yang T, Zhang Z, Gao Z, et al. A neural circuit encoding mating states tunes defensive behavior in Drosophila. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3962. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17771-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 229.Liu C, Tian N, Chang P, Zhang W. Mating reconciles fitness and fecundity by switching diet preference in flies. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):9912. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-54369-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 230.Chen J, Zhu P, Jin S, Zhang Z, Jiang S, Li S, et al. A hormone-to-neuropeptide pathway inhibits sexual receptivity in immature Drosophila females. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025;122(8):e2418481122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2418481122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 231.Dou X, Chen K, Brown MR, Strand MR. Reciprocal interactions between neuropeptide F and RYamide regulate host attraction in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;121(28):e2408072121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2408072121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 232.Fujii S, Amrein H. Ventral lateral and DN1 clock neurons mediate distinct properties of male sex drive rhythm in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(23):10590–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912457107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Md Rajib Sharker

21 Dec 2025

-->PONE-D-25-58401-->-->GAL4-based functional screen of neuropeptides in Drosophila reproduction-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Sadanandappa,

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 Feb 04 2026 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.. 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 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 . 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,

Md Rajib Sharker, Ph.D.

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

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[This work was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program [LT000933/2017 to MKS] and the National Institute of Health [Pioneer grant 1DP1MH110234 to GB]].

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript is well-organized and clearly written, presenting a study objective that is both relevant and valuable for publication. However, I strongly encourage the authors to address several critical issues within the manuscript. These concerns need to be thoroughly addressed to enhance the quality and rigor of the study. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript undergo significant revisions before it can be considered for publication.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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.-->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: No

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

-->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 presents screening of 25 out of approximately 50 neuropeptides present in D. melanogaster for their role in egg-laying behavior. Authors employed a genetic technique that allowed them to interfere with NP signaling (expression of tetanus toxin in NP cells) to conclude about the involvement of NP in the egg-laying. Furthermore, transgenic flies carried a GFP tagged genetic constructs, which allowed for analysis of NP presence in the brain and ovaries. Results confirmed the role in reproduction for some NP and identified previously undescribed role for several NP in egg-laying.

This paper contains an impressive amount of work describing a gene expression of the NP constructs in the brain and ovaries and the behavioral phenotype. The experimental methods, including the number of samples and flies, show high standards. The outcome of each screened NP line on the phenotypes was described in terms of previous literature results, and this presents one of the major critiques of this paper. While partially useful it makes for a repetitive reading, without any major take-home messages. The other critiques is related to the previous one; authors have not described or tried to interpret few general observations/questions that arise from the work summary presented in the Table 2. These points are elaborated bellow.

1. It would help if authors described what was the rationale for picking these specific 25 NP, since they include some that have previously been described extensively, and some that have not. For example, the aim of the paper would have been clearer if they selected only those which have not previously described reproductive effect, or specifically, egg-laying defect, or another clear criteria.

2. Authors used NP-TNT flies of both sexes in the egg laying assay, which led to difficulty in interpretations of the phenotype – was it female or male derived effect, or a combination. Considering that expression analysis was done only in female brain and ovaries, but not testes, makes the interpretation even harder. Considering that egg laying assay is not overly time-demanding, it would be useful to repeat it with the control males (the same genetic background or inactive TNT). That way authors could with greater certainty ascribe phenotypes to the effect that NP have on female physiology.

3. How much does brain and ovaries staining contribute to the interpretations of egg-laying outcomes? Correlation between the presence in the ovaries and egg laying defect argue strongly for a direct role in egg-laying. But what about cases when there is no expression in the brain or ovaries, but the phenotype is present? My point is that the interpretations are hard and that one way of analyzing the data is to look for correlations and try to interpret them in the context of known literature. The interpretation should be in the context of commonalities that this screen showed, and not a review-like description of each single NP line, which makes it hard to see an overarching principle.

4. I compliment authors on pointing out the major limitations of this study in the Conclusion. Considering that phenotypes might reflect either direct or indirect role on egg-laying in females, or indirect effects on sperm production and behavior in males, it is hard to comprehend what is the major contribution of this paper. The fact that NP are important and that more mechanistic studies are needed is obvious. Maybe, the message could be clearer and simpler if the uncertainties of at least one factor are eliminated – males – by using wt/control males.

5. In the context of complexities and difficulties in explaining for the phenotypes I am not sure that the form in which the paper is written (L560/61 “experimental screening with a targeted literature review”) contributes to its clarity. Considering that based on this study a conclusive interpretation of the role that a specific NP has on egg-laying is impossible, the paper might be easier to read if it contained only the description of the results with important questions to be addressed. For example: inconsistencies or large differences on egg-laying between different insertion lines for the same NP, which raises the broader question about how to choose a best line to use (the one that leads to a phenotype that we like??), the inconsistencies between different NP (some show no expression in brain or ovaries but effect on egg-laying, some show the expression and the effect). So, expanding the paper with “literature review” does not help, but detracts from the main aim. Instead, authors should focus on the results and questions that this study raises.

Reviewer #2: In the article entitled ”GAL4-based functional screen of neuropeptides in Drosophila reproduction”, the authors investigated the potential role of 25 neuropeptides in reproduction. They assessed the number of eggs laid after disrupting the targeted neuropeptides and examined on parallel their expression in the brain and ovary.

The article is well-written, the experiment is well-designed and the conclusions are supported by the data. The two figures and three tables chosen to illustrate the data are relevant. However, I suggest modifying Figure 1, which lacks precisions for non-experts, and Table 3, which contains redundancies with Figure 2. In addition, the article could benefit from additional details to help non-experts better understand the strategy. Below are some comments to consider in order to improve the manuscript. I suggest reorganizing a little bit the discussion and shortening it by about half, since it is long and very descriptive, and most of the neuropeptide descriptions are actually already detailed in Table 2. Most of my remarks may be naive but I think that including some modifications would make the article accessible to a wider audience.

Refer to the attached file for more details

**********

-->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 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 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_PONE-D-25-58401.pdf

pone.0345918.s003.pdf (660.7KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Mar 27;21(3):e0345918. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345918.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Mar 2026

Editorial Requests:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

We have revised the manuscript to ensure compliance with PLOS ONE style requirements, including file naming conventions.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[This work was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program [LT000933/2017 to MKS] and the National Institute of Health [Pioneer grant 1DP1MH110234 to GB]].

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We have included the statement, “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript" (lines 1272-1273) and have also included in the cover letter.

3. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Not applicable.

4. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript is well-organized and clearly written, presenting a study objective that is both relevant and valuable for publication. However, I strongly encourage the authors to address several critical issues within the manuscript. These concerns need to be thoroughly addressed to enhance the quality and rigor of the study. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript undergo significant revisions before it can be considered for publication.

We thank the editor for the positive assessment of our manuscript’s organization, clarity, and relevance. We have carefully addressed all critical comments and clarified the study’s scope, reduced redundancy, emphasized key results and limitations, and improved overall clarity and rigor.

Reviewer #1: This study presents screening of 25 out of approximately 50 neuropeptides present in D. melanogaster for their role in egg-laying behavior. Authors employed a genetic technique that allowed them to interfere with NP signaling (expression of tetanus toxin in NP cells) to conclude about the involvement of NP in the egg-laying. Furthermore, transgenic flies carried a GFP tagged genetic constructs, which allowed for analysis of NP presence in the brain and ovaries. Results confirmed the role in reproduction for some NP and identified previously undescribed role for several NP in egg-laying.

This paper contains an impressive amount of work describing a gene expression of the NP constructs in the brain and ovaries and the behavioral phenotype. The experimental methods, including the number of samples and flies, show high standards. The outcome of each screened NP line on the phenotypes was described in terms of previous literature results, and this presents one of the major critiques of this paper. While partially useful it makes for a repetitive reading, without any major take-home messages. The other critiques is related to the previous one; authors have not described or tried to interpret few general observations/questions that arise from the work summary presented in the Table 2. These points are elaborated bellow.

We thank the reviewer for the thorough evaluation and constructive feedback. We have revised the manuscript to improve clarity, reduce repetition, and better articulate the rationale, scope, and key messages of this study.

1. It would help if authors described what was the rationale for picking these specific 25 NP, since they include some that have previously been described extensively, and some that have not. For example, the aim of the paper would have been clearer if they selected only those which have not previously described reproductive effect, or specifically, egg-laying defect, or another clear criteria.

This study was designed as an unbiased neurogenetic screen. We selected to categories of neuropeptides:

i. neuropeptides with known functions in reproduction (AstB/MIP, CRZ, DH31, DH44, MIP, DSK, SIFa, AstC, PDF, and ETH) to validate the robustness of our behavioral assay; with the exception AstC and PDF, these consistently reproduced known phenotypes, and

ii. neuropeptides for which reproductive roles had not been previously described, enabling discovery of novel association with reproduction.

We now clearly state this rationale, and the study aims in the revised manuscript (lines: 65-71; 245, 341-343)

2. Authors used NP-TNT flies of both sexes in the egg laying assay, which led to difficulty in interpretations of the phenotype – was it female or male derived effect, or a combination. Considering that expression analysis was done only in female brain and ovaries, but not testes, makes the interpretation even harder. Considering that egg laying assay is not overly time-demanding, it would be useful to repeat it with the control males (the same genetic background or inactive TNT). That way authors could with greater certainty ascribe phenotypes to the effect that NP have on female physiology.

We acknowledge that the observed phenotypes could arise from neuropeptide perturbation in females, males, or both. Expression analysis was performed only in female brains and ovaries, and we have clarified this limitation in the manuscript (lines: 200-207), describing these neuropeptides as having potential roles in reproduction that require further sex-specific studies.

All assays used males and females of the same genetic background; repeating the full screen with control males for all 25 genotypes is beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, our results provide initial insights and highlight candidates for future mechanistic investigation.

3. How much does brain and ovaries staining contribute to the interpretations of egg-laying outcomes? Correlation between the presence in the ovaries and egg laying defect argue strongly for a direct role in egg-laying. But what about cases when there is no expression in the brain or ovaries, but the phenotype is present? My point is that the interpretations are hard and that one way of analyzing the data is to look for correlations and try to interpret them in the context of known literature. The interpretation should be in the context of commonalities that this screen showed, and not a review-like description of each single NP line, which makes it hard to see an overarching principle.

The GFP expression analysis was performed primarily to validate the GAL4 reagents used in the screen. While correlations between expression in the ovary and egg-laying defects may suggest direct roles, the absence of expression in brain or ovary does not preclude indirect mechanisms. Without cell type-specific and functional dissection, definitive conclusion cannot be drawn. Therefore, we didn’t over stretch our findings and conclusions.

We have revised the text to emphasize that expression data a presented as descriptive context, not as direct functional evidence, and we avoid over-interpretation (Lines: 162-164). We also reduced review-like repetition and strengthened synthesis and shared patterns and limitations.

4. I compliment authors on pointing out the major limitations of this study in the Conclusion. Considering that phenotypes might reflect either direct or indirect role on egg-laying in females, or indirect effects on sperm production and behavior in males, it is hard to comprehend what is the major contribution of this paper. The fact that NP are important and that more mechanistic studies are needed is obvious. Maybe, the message could be clearer and simpler if the uncertainties of at least one factor are eliminated – males – by using wt/control males.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The major contribution of this work is the systematic, side-by-side functional screening of a large fraction of Drosophila neuropeptides using a consistent genetic and behavioral framework. Beyond confirming roles of known reproductive neuropeptides, this study identifies several previously uncharacterized candidates affecting egg-laying and explicitly defines the limitations and future directions required for mechanistic resolution. We have clarified this contribution and scope in the revised manuscript (Lines: 87-90, 452-479).

5. In the context of complexities and difficulties in explaining for the phenotypes I am not sure that the form in which the paper is written (L560/61 “experimental screening with a targeted literature review”) contributes to its clarity. Considering that based on this study a conclusive interpretation of the role that a specific NP has on egg-laying is impossible, the paper might be easier to read if it contained only the description of the results with important questions to be addressed. For example: inconsistencies or large differences on egg-laying between different insertion lines for the same NP, which raises the broader question about how to choose a best line to use (the one that leads to a phenotype that we like??), the inconsistencies between different NP (some show no expression in brain or ovaries but effect on egg-laying, some show the expression and the effect). So, expanding the paper with “literature review” does not help, but detracts from the main aim. Instead, authors should focus on the results and questions that this study raises.

We agree that extensive literature review can detract from clarity when definitive functional conclusions cannot be drawn. In response, we have revised the manuscript to reduce per-neuropeptide literature discussion and removed language framing the study as a “targeted literature review.” The revised text now focuses primarily on the experimental results, explicitly highlighting key observations, inconsistencies across GAL4 insertion lines, and mismatches between expression patterns and egg-laying phenotypes.

Rather than selectively emphasizing consistent or strong effects, we intentionally report variability across genetic reagents to raise important questions regarding line selection, indirect versus direct mechanisms, and circuit-level contributions to reproductive output. We believe that documenting these discrepancies provides practical guidance for the community and aligns the manuscript more clearly with its primary aim as a functional screening study that defines candidates, limitations, and priorities for future mechanistic work.

Reviewer #2: In the article entitled ”GAL4-based functional screen of neuropeptides in Drosophila reproduction”, the authors investigated the potential role of 25 neuropeptides in reproduction. They assessed the number of eggs laid after disrupting the targeted neuropeptides and examined on parallel their expression in the brain and ovary.

The article is well-written, the experiment is well-designed and the conclusions are supported by the data. The two figures and three tables chosen to illustrate the data are relevant. However, I suggest modifying Figure 1, which lacks precisions for non-experts, and Table 3, which contains redundancies with Figure 2. In addition, the article could benefit from additional details to help non-experts better understand the strategy. Below are some comments to consider in order to improve the manuscript. I suggest reorganizing a little bit the discussion and shortening it by about half, since it is long and very descriptive, and most of the neuropeptide descriptions are actually already detailed in Table 2. Most of my remarks may be naive but I think that including some modifications would make the article accessible to a wider audience.

We thank the reviewer for the constructive evaluation and positive assessment of the study. We have revised Figure 1 to improve clarity for non-expert readers and modified Table 3 to remove redundancies with Figure 2. We have also added clarifying details to better explain the screening strategy and substantially reorganized the Discussion to reduce redundancy with Table 2 and improve accessibility, while maintaining a focused synthesis of the reproductive functions of Drosophila neuropeptides.

Abstract

Line 33. I am not sure to understand the meaning of the term “readout”. Would the term “trait” be more appropriate?

Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion. We have retained the term “readout” and clarified its usage in the revised manuscript by specifying “functional readout” to emphasize that egg-laying was used as a quantitative assay of reproductive output in this screen. We felt that the term "trait" could imply a fixed or inherent characteristic, whereas egg-laying here represents an outcome measure influenced by neuropeptide disruption (Line: 28).

Line 34. Replace implicated by “described or known to have a role”

We have incorporated the reviewer’s suggestion in line 29.

Introduction

Line 82. Here, I think you could explain the strategy and refer to Figure 1, which could include additional details. It was unclear to me how the constructs were obtained, and what role each of them played in the study. Since I am not familiar with the field, I tried to find more information in the references listed in the text but that was time-consuming.

Could you improve Figure 1 taking some good ideas from the following scheme?

Thank you for this helpful suggestion and for highlighting the perspective of non-Drosophila readers. We have revised Figure 1 as suggested and explicitly referred to it in the text (Lines: 66-67) to improve clarity and accessibility.

• All transgenic fly lines used in this study were obtained from the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center, and detailed information on genotype, stock identifier, and chromosomal insertion for each neuropeptide is provided in Table 1. For additional background on how these stocks are generated and curated, we have directed readers to Flybase, which publicly maintains comprehensive information on transgenic fly stocks (Lines 98-101).

• The functional screen was conducted using the GAL4/UAS transgenic system, a well-established and widely used genetic approach originally developed by Andrea Brand and Norbert Perrimon (1993). We have cited the original publication to guide readers unfamiliar with this methodology and to provide the appropriate methodological context.

In your experiment, is Gal4 associated with gene X (neuropeptide) and UAS either with GFP (expression) or tetanus toxin (disruption of targeted gene?). It is unclear to me how this toxin works.

I suggest referencing the figure 1 here in the introduction part.

That is correct. While we briefly mentioned this approach in the Introduction, we provide a detailed description of the screening strategy and its rational in the Result section (Lines 158-165; 172-179). In this study, GAL4 drivers associated with each of the 25 neuropeptide genes were crossed with UAS transgenic lines for two complementary purposes:

i. NP-GAL4 X UAS-mCD8::GFP to visualize expression patterns in the brain and ovaries.

ii. NP-GAL4 X UAS-TNT to silence neuronal activity.

The tetanus toxin light chain (TNT) enzymatically cleaves synaptobrevin, a synaptic vesicle protein, thereby blocking synaptic vesicle release and effectively silencing targeted neurons. For controls, we used the inactive form of tetanus toxin (UAS-TNTVIF) under the same NP-GAL4 to assess any potential effects of toxin expression itself. By assessing phenotypic changes in neuropeptide-expressing neurons silenced in this manner, we were able to determine their functional importance in reproductive processes. These GAL4/UAS-based functional screening are well-established and widely used in the field.

Material and methods

Line 103. Table 1. Reference to Table 1 is only mentioned in this section. However, you do not explain why sometimes you used 1, 2 or three genotypes to one neuropeptides. Please explain the relevance. Do you think it is worth discussing some of your results concerning some genotypes where the gal-transgene is inserted in the X chromosome?

In addition to the M

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0345918.s005.docx (88.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Md Rajib Sharker

12 Mar 2026

GAL4-based functional screen of neuropeptides in Drosophila reproduction

PONE-D-25-58401R1

Dear Dr. Madhumala Sadanandappa

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support ..

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,

Md Rajib Sharker, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Authors have properly completed revision, and address all concerned issues. Now this paper can be considered for publication

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Md Rajib Sharker

PONE-D-25-58401R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Sadanandappa,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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. Md Rajib Sharker

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. Neuropeptide expression in the ovary.

    Representative whole-mount ovary images showing NP-GAL4 > UAS-mCD8::GFP expression, immunostained with anti-GFP (green), DAPI (blue), phalloidin (red).

    (PDF)

    pone.0345918.s001.pdf (597.6KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Raw egg-laying counts for all genotypes.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0345918.s002.xlsx (19.1KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review_PONE-D-25-58401.pdf

    pone.0345918.s003.pdf (660.7KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0345918.s005.docx (88.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw datasets generated in this study are provided in the Supplemental information files. Further enquires can be directed to the corresponding authors: Madhumala.K.Sadanandappa@hitchcock.org (MKS) and Giovanni.Bosco@dartmouth.edu (GB).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES