Figure 2.

wPN1 inhibition disrupts wing grooming

(A) Video screenshots showing the dust distribution in a control fly and a fly with wPN1 inhibition at different time points.

(B) Percent of time each behavior performed by dusted flies with wPN1 inhibition and dusted control flies. Wing grooming is significantly reduced in flies with wPN1 inhibition.

(C) Schematic of “fly-on-a-ball” system. A light fiber delivers blue light to the thorax of a decapitated fly. A pipette tip attached to a micromanipulator performs mechanical stimuli to the wings at ∼2 Hz. Each 90-s experiment was separated into three episodes. Mechanical stimuli were delivered throughout the whole experiment. Constant blue light was only turned on during the middle 30 s.

(D) Video screenshots showing wing scratching (performed by one leg) and single wing grooming (performed by both hind legs).

(E) Quantification of different wing cleaning behaviors induced by mechanical stimuli with and without wPN1 inhibition. Individual data points, median line, and 95% confidence intervals for the mean are shown in the figures. Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon rank-sum post hoc with Bonferroni correction were used for comparisons in (B). Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparisons in (E). ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.