Male manipulation impinges on social-dependent tumor suppression in Drosophila melanogaster females.
Behavior
Brain
Fertilization
Nervous system
Sex-peptide
Virginity
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Mar 2024
17 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
12
01
2024
accepted:
13
03
2024
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
18
3
2024
entrez:
18
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physiological status can influence social behavior, which in turn can affect physiology and health. Previously, we reported that tumor growth in Drosophila virgin females depends on the social context, but did not investigate the underlying physiological mechanisms. Here, we sought to characterize the signal perceived between tumorous flies, ultimately discovering that the tumor suppressive effect varies depending on reproductive status. Firstly, we show that the tumor suppressive effect is neither dependent on remnant pheromone-like products nor on the microbiota. Transcriptome analysis of the heads of these tumorous flies reveals social-dependent gene-expression changes related to nervous-system activity, suggesting that a cognitive-like relay might mediate the tumor suppressive effect. The transcriptome also reveals changes in the expression of genes related to mating behavior. Surprisingly, we observed that this social-dependent tumor-suppressive effect is lost in fertilized females. After mating, Drosophila females change their behavior-favoring offspring survival-in response to peptides transferred via the male ejaculate, a phenomenon called "male manipulation". Remarkably, the social-dependent tumor suppressive effect is restored in females mated by sex-peptide deficient males. Since male manipulation has likely been selected to favor male gene transmission, our findings indicate that this evolutionary trait impedes social-dependent tumor growth slowdown.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38494531
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-57003-3
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-57003-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6411Subventions
Organisme : French Government
ID : fellowships MENRT 2020-110 to PD
Organisme : France Génomique French National Program "Investissement d'Avenir"
ID : ANR-10-INBS-09
Organisme : Fondation ARC contre le Cancer
ID : PJA 20181208078 and ARCPJA2022060005236 to JM
Organisme : French league against Cancer
ID : M27218 to JM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Nonogaki, K., Nozue, K. & Oka, Y. Social isolation affects the development of obesity and type 2 diabetes in mice. Endocrinology 148, 4658–4666 (2007).
doi: 10.1210/en.2007-0296
pubmed: 17640995
Venna, V. R., Xu, Y., Doran, S. J., Patrizz, A. & McCullough, L. D. Social interaction plays a critical role in neurogenesis and recovery after stroke. Transl. Psychiatry 4, e351 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/tp.2013.128
pubmed: 24473442
pmcid: 3905235
Lin, E. J. et al. Social overcrowding as a chronic stress model that increases adiposity in mice. Psychoneuroendocrinology 51, 318–330 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.10.007
pubmed: 25462904
Dawson, E. H. et al. Social environment mediates cancer progression in Drosophila. Nat. Commun. 9, 3574 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05737-w
pubmed: 30177703
pmcid: 6120865
Battesti, M. et al. Ecology of information: Social transmission dynamics within groups of non-social insects. Proc. Biol. Sci. 282, 20142480 (2015).
pubmed: 25589603
pmcid: 4309000
Sueur, C. & Mery, F. Editorial: Social interaction in animals: linking experimental approach and social network analysis. Front. Psychol. 8, 35 (2017).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00035
pubmed: 28154548
pmcid: 5244467
Pasquaretta, C. et al. Understanding dynamics of information transmission in Drosophila melanogaster using a statistical modeling framework for longitudinal network data (the RSiena package). Front. Psychol. 7, 539 (2016).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00539
pubmed: 27148146
pmcid: 4835720
Philippe, A. S. et al. Genetic variation in aggregation behaviour and interacting phenotypes in Drosophila. Proc. Biol. Sci. 283, 20152967 (2016).
pubmed: 27009219
pmcid: 4822458
Pasquaretta, C. et al. How social network structure affects decision-making in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Biol. Sci. 283, 20152954 (2016).
pubmed: 26936247
pmcid: 4810861
Dumenil, C. et al. Pheromonal cues deposited by mated females convey social information about egg-laying sites in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Chem. Ecol. 42, 259–269 (2016).
doi: 10.1007/s10886-016-0681-3
pubmed: 26994611
pmcid: 4839039
Billeter, J. C. & Wolfner, M. F. Chemical cues that guide female reproduction in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Chem. Ecol. 44, 750–769 (2018).
doi: 10.1007/s10886-018-0947-z
pubmed: 29557077
pmcid: 6085157
Verschut, T. A. et al. Aggregation pheromones have a non-linear effect on oviposition behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Nat. Commun. 14, 1544 (2023).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37046-2
pubmed: 36941252
pmcid: 10027874
Stockley, P. & Bro-Jorgensen, J. Female competition and its evolutionary consequences in mammals. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 86, 341–366 (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00149.x
pubmed: 20636474
Cain, K. E. & Ketterson, E. D. Competitive females are successful females; Phenotype, mechanism and selection in a common songbird. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 241–252 (2012).
doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1272-5
pubmed: 22345899
pmcid: 3278083
Bath, E. et al. Sperm and sex peptide stimulate aggression in female Drosophila. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0154 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0154
pubmed: 28580431
pmcid: 5447820
Liu, H. & Kubli, E. Sex-peptide is the molecular basis of the sperm effect in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9929–9933 (2003).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1631700100
pubmed: 12897240
pmcid: 187889
Koppik, M. & Fricke, C. Sex peptide receipt alters macronutrient utilization but not optimal yeast-sugar ratio in Drosophila melanogaster females. J. Insect. Physiol. 139, 104382 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2022.104382
pubmed: 35318041
White, M. A., Bonfini, A., Wolfner, M. F. & Buchon, N. Drosophila melanogaster sex peptide regulates mated female midgut morphology and physiology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018112118 (2021).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2018112118
pubmed: 34903581
pmcid: 8719879
Scheunemann, L., Lampin-Saint-Amaux, A., Schor, J. & Preat, T. A sperm peptide enhances long-term memory in female Drosophila. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax3432 (2019).
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax3432
pubmed: 31799390
pmcid: 6867886
Barnes, A. I., Wigby, S., Boone, J. M., Partridge, L. & Chapman, T. Feeding, fecundity and lifespan in female Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 1675–1683 (2008).
pubmed: 18430646
pmcid: 2452982
Short, S. M., Wolfner, M. F. & Lazzaro, B. P. Female Drosophila melanogaster suffer reduced defense against infection due to seminal fluid components. J. Insect. Physiol. 58, 1192–1201 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2012.06.002
pubmed: 22698822
pmcid: 3423548
Kubli, E. & Bopp, D. Sexual behavior: How sex peptide flips the postmating switch of female flies. Curr. Biol. 22, R520–R522 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.04.058
pubmed: 22789998
Chapman, T. Evolutionary conflicts of interest between males and females. Curr. Biol. 16, R744–R754 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.08.020
pubmed: 16950101
Martorell, O. et al. Conserved mechanisms of tumorigenesis in the Drosophila adult midgut. PLoS ONE 9, e88413 (2014).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088413
pubmed: 24516653
pmcid: 3916428
Sgro, C. M. & Partridge, L. A delayed wave of death from reproduction in Drosophila. Science 286, 2521–2524 (1999).
doi: 10.1126/science.286.5449.2521
pubmed: 10617470
Farine, J. P., Ferveur, J. F. & Everaerts, C. Volatile Drosophila cuticular pheromones are affected by social but not sexual experience. PLoS ONE 7, e40396 (2012).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040396
pubmed: 22808151
pmcid: 3394786
Stefana, M. I. et al. Developmental diet regulates Drosophila lifespan via lipid autotoxins. Nat. Commun. 8, 1384 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01740-9
pubmed: 29123106
pmcid: 5680271
Haj-Ahmad, Y. & Hickey, D. A. A molecular explanation of frequency-dependent selection in Drosophila. Nature 299, 350–352 (1982).
doi: 10.1038/299350a0
pubmed: 6180326
Boer, P. H. & Hickey, D. A. The alpha-amylase gene in Drosophila melanogaster: Nucleotide sequence, gene structure and expression motifs. Nucleic Acids Res. 14, 8399–8411 (1986).
doi: 10.1093/nar/14.21.8399
pubmed: 3024105
pmcid: 311867
Szyszka, P. & Galizia, C. G. The Role of the sucrose-responsive IR60b neuron for Drosophila melanogaster: A hypothesis. Chem. Senses 43, 311–312 (2018).
doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjy020
pubmed: 29546407
pmcid: 5967455
Storelli, G. et al. Lactobacillus plantarum promotes Drosophila systemic growth by modulating hormonal signals through TOR-dependent nutrient sensing. Cell Metab. 14, 403–414 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2011.07.012
pubmed: 21907145
Ge, S. X., Jung, D. & Yao, R. ShinyGO: A graphical gene-set enrichment tool for animals and plants. Bioinformatics 36, 2628–2629 (2020).
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz931
pubmed: 31882993
Lawniczak, M. K. & Begun, D. J. A genome-wide analysis of courting and mating responses in Drosophila melanogaster females. Genome 47, 900–910 (2004).
doi: 10.1139/g04-050
pubmed: 15499404
McGraw, L. A., Gibson, G., Clark, A. G. & Wolfner, M. F. Genes regulated by mating, sperm, or seminal proteins in mated female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr. Biol. 14, 1509–1514 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.08.028
pubmed: 15324670
Dalton, J. E. et al. Dynamic, mating-induced gene expression changes in female head and brain tissues of Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Genom. 11, 541 (2010).
doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-541
Nanfack-Minkeu, F. & Sirot, L. K. Effects of mating on gene expression in female insects: Unifying the field. Insects 13, 69 (2022).
doi: 10.3390/insects13010069
pubmed: 35055912
pmcid: 8781128
Hadjieconomou, D. et al. Enteric neurons increase maternal food intake during reproduction. Nature 587, 455–459 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2866-8
pubmed: 33116314
pmcid: 7610780
Garrido, D. et al. Fatty acid synthase cooperates with glyoxalase 1 to protect against sugar toxicity. PLoS Genet 11, e1004995 (2015).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004995
pubmed: 25692475
pmcid: 4334898
Devilliers, M. et al. Differential metabolic sensitivity of insulin-like-response- and mTORC1-dependent overgrowth in Drosophila fat cells. Genetics 217, 1–12 (2021).
doi: 10.1093/genetics/iyaa010
pubmed: 33683355
R_Core_Team (2013) R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Branson, K., Robie, A. A., Bender, J., Perona, P. & Dickinson, M. H. High-throughput ethomics in large groups of Drosophila. Nat. Methods 6, 451–457 (2009).
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1328
pubmed: 19412169
pmcid: 2734963