Mechanisms and mechanics of cell competition in epithelia

When fast-growing cells are confronted with slow-growing cells in a mosaic tissue, the slow-growing cells are often progressively eliminated by apoptosis through a process known as cell competition. The underlying signalling pathways remain unknown, but recent findings have shown that cell crowding within an epithelium leads to the eviction of cells from the epithelial sheet. This suggests that mechanical forces could contribute to cell elimination during cell competition

Down-Regulation of Honey Bee IRS Gene Biases Behavior toward Food Rich in Protein

Food choice and eating behavior affect health and longevity. Large-scale research efforts aim to understand the molecular and social/behavioral mechanisms of energy homeostasis, body weight, and food intake. Honey bees (Apis mellifera) could provide a model for these studies since individuals vary in food-related behavior and social factors can be controlled. Here, we examine a potential role of peripheral insulin receptor substrate (IRS) expression in honey bee foraging behavior. IRS is central to cellular nutrient sensing through transduction of insulin/insulin-like signals (IIS). By reducing peripheral IRS gene expression and IRS protein amount with the use of RNA interference (RNAi), we demonstrate that IRS influences foraging choice in two standard strains selected for different food-hoarding behavior. Compared with controls, IRS knockdowns bias their foraging effort toward protein (pollen) rather than toward carbohydrate (nectar) sources. Through control experiments, we establish that IRS does not influence the bees' sucrose sensory response, a modality that is generally associated with food-related behavior and specifically correlated with the foraging preference of honey bees. These results reveal a new affector pathway of honey bee social foraging, and suggest that IRS expressed in peripheral tissue can modulate an insect's foraging choice between protein and carbohydrate sources

Genetic control of size in Drosophila.

During the past ten years, significant progress has been made in understanding the basic mechanisms of the development of multicellular organisms. Genetic analysis of the development of Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila has unearthed a fruitful number of genes involved in establishing the basic body plan, patterning of limbs, specification of cell fate and regulation of programmed cell death. The genes involved in these developmental processes have been conserved throughout evolution and homologous genes are involved in the patterning of insect and human limbs. Despite these important discoveries, we have learned astonishingly little about one of the most obvious distinctions between animals: their difference in body size. The mass of the smallest mammal, the bumble-bee bat, is 2 g while that of the largest mammal, the blue whale, is 150 t or 150 million grams. Remarkably, even though they are in the same class, body size can vary up to 75-million-fold. Furthermore, this body growth can be finite in the case of most vertebrates or it can occur continuously throughout life, as for trees, molluscs and large crustaceans. Currently, we know comparatively little about the genetic control of body size. In this article we will review recent evidence from vertebrates and particularly from Drosophila that implicates insulin/insulin-like growth factor-I and other growth pathways in the control of cell, organ and body size

Regulation of histone mRNA in the unperturbed cell cycle: evidence suggesting control at two posttranscriptional steps.

The levels of histone mRNA increase 35-fold as selectively detached mitotic CHO cells progress from mitosis through G1 and into S phase. Using an exogenous gene with a histone 3' end which is not sensitive to transcriptional or half-life regulation, we show that 3' processing is regulated as cells progress from G1 to S phase. The half-life of histone mRNA is similar in G1- and S-phase cells, as measured after inhibition of transcription by actinomycin D (dactinomycin) or indirectly after stabilization by the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide. Taken together, these results suggest that the change in histone mRNA levels between G1- and S-phase cells must be due to an increase in the rate of biosynthesis, a combination of changes in transcription rate and processing efficiency. In G2 phase, there is a rapid 35-fold decrease in the histone mRNA concentration which our results suggest is due primarily to an altered stability of histone mRNA. These results are consistent with a model for cell cycle regulation of histone mRNA levels in which the effects on both RNA 3' processing and transcription, rather than alterations in mRNA stability, are the major mechanisms by which low histone mRNA levels are maintained during G1