Main Menu (Mobile)- Block
- Our Research
-
Support Teams
- Overview
- Anatomy and Histology
- Cryo-Electron Microscopy
- Electron Microscopy
- Flow Cytometry
- Fly Facility
- Gene Targeting and Transgenics
- Immortalized Cell Line Culture
- Integrative Imaging
- Janelia Experimental Technology
- Mass Spectrometry
- Media Prep
- Molecular Genomics
- Primary & iPS Cell Culture
- Project Pipeline Support
- Project Technical Resources
- Quantitative Genomics
- Scientific Computing Software
- Scientific Computing Systems
- Viral Tools
- Vivarium
- Open Science
- You + Janelia
- About Us
Main Menu - Block
- Overview
- Anatomy and Histology
- Cryo-Electron Microscopy
- Electron Microscopy
- Flow Cytometry
- Fly Facility
- Gene Targeting and Transgenics
- Immortalized Cell Line Culture
- Integrative Imaging
- Janelia Experimental Technology
- Mass Spectrometry
- Media Prep
- Molecular Genomics
- Primary & iPS Cell Culture
- Project Pipeline Support
- Project Technical Resources
- Quantitative Genomics
- Scientific Computing Software
- Scientific Computing Systems
- Viral Tools
- Vivarium
Note: Research in this publication was not performed at Janelia.
Abstract
We have shown previously that the loss of abdominal pigmentation in D. santomea relative to its sister species D. yakuba resulted, in part, from cis-regulatory mutations at the tan locus. Matute et al. claim, based solely upon extrapolation from genetic crosses of D. santomea and D. melanogaster, a much more divergent species, that at least four X chromosome regions but not tan are responsible for pigmentation differences. Here, we provide additional evidence from introgressions of D. yakuba genes into D. santomea that support a causative role for tan in the loss of pigmentation and present analyses that contradict Matute et al.’s claims. We discuss how the choice of parental species and other factors affect the ability to identify loci responsible for species divergence, and we affirm that all of our previously reported results and conclusions stand.
