Scientists are often trying to insert new or modified genes into fruit flies. It’s usually difficult to tell if their gene has been successfully inserted so researchers add their gene next to an obvious marker gene. White vs. pigmented flies provide a good marker so scientists created an artificial white imitator gene called mini-white. Scientists stick the desired gene and the mini-white gene together and then insert them into white fly embryos. Any flies that grow up with dark eyes should also have the test gene. To allow even further control, scientists attach DNA that acts as a heat activated switch to the control gene. They can then turn on their target gene whenever they want by heating up the flies.

Now being able to flip a switch in an animals genetics is already pretty cool but now we get to the interesting part. Unknown to scientists, the heat activated switch activates genes on both sides of it. This means that after heating both the target gene and mini-white suddenly flood into the fly. This influx of mini-white produces some rather odd effects. To quote from Zhang and Odenwald, the scientists that noticed this:

[After heating], transformant males displayed their wings in a spread outward and upward position. Close examination of these males revealed that many had protracted phalli. … Coincident with the extended-wings posture was the onset of vigorous male-male courtship.

The picture to the right shows some of this courtship. The arrow points to a poor ignored female. Again I think the researchers describe the courtship best:

Chain leaders frequently courted members of their own chains, creating courtship circles and lariats. The male-male courtship activities included touching partners with forelegs, unilateral 90° wing extensions (a display that was followed by the extended-wings posture), licking the partner’s genitalia, and curling the abdomen to achieve genital-genital contact. While participants repeated their courtship routines multiple times, no repelling signals were detected-i.e., wing flicking or face kicking.

Since this was a pretty odd phenomenon, Zhang and Odenwald decided to investigate a bit further. As shown in the picture to the left, they looked at heated normal flies (left), heated mini-white flies (middle) and non-heated mini-white flies (right). Only the heated mini-white flies form the conspicious homosexual chains (the arrow points to females hiding in the corner). To test for pheremones, they tried pumping air from the homosexual bottles to the non-homosexual bottles and switching bottles but nothing happened. Interestingly, they found that even non-modified males would eventually join in the homosexual activities if most males (> 80%) in the bottle were participating mini-white flies. But that was likely a behavioral side effect and didn’t really help explain what was going on. They tried adding or removing different target genes to the mini-white and heat switch DNA but that did not change the results. They tested the children of homosexual flies and found that the homosexual trait associated with whichever chromosome had the inserted mini-white gene. They even fed mutagen to mini-white flies that altered the DNA sequence of mini-white and found that these broken mini-white flies did not exhibit homosexuality. So they are pretty sure they know that abnormal production of min-white can trigger homosexual behavior.

But they are unsure why a pigment producing protien could have such obvious behavioral effects. Interestingly, white protien is also important in transporting trytophan (yes the Thanksgiving turkey sleepiness protien [although that's mostly a myth]). A decrease in tryptophan has been observed to cause male-male mounting in rats and rabbits. In addition, serotonin (a product of trytophan) depleted cats also exhibit homosexual behavior. This led Zhang and Odenwald to hypothesize that abnormal influx of white gene expression was causing a depletion of tryptophan and serotonin and leading to homosexual behavior although this still needs further investigation.

So this was a pretty cool and obvious demonstration of how genes, molecular pathways and behaviors are tied together both in a single animal and over quite different species (and how can you not like a paper describing “courtship chains and lariats”).

References

S.-D. Zhang & W. F. Odenwald 1995. Misexpression of the White (w) Gene Triggers Male-Male Courtship in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92:5525-5529

The sound is half the fun so don’t forget to turn up your speakers. It seems like it must be a part of some research project with the fancy recording set up but I’m not sure who made it. Anyway it seemed pretty cool, so I took a quick look at the literature to see what was going on.

At first glance, it looks like the spider is making the noise with his front legs but it turns out that, according to research by Noordam, he is actually using a specialized hardened region on the bottom of his abdomen to bang on the ground at the same time he moves his arms (At third glance, it looks like he’s not really hitting the ground with his abdomen. See the update below.). If you look closely on the video you can see his tail end moving up and down in time with the sounds.

Rypstra, Wieg, Walker, Persons found female spiders are more likely to copulate if the male does more arm and body shakes. On the other hand, the male is more likely to work harder at his jitterbug if he can detect pheromones indicating the female has not yet mated. Next time I see a couple spiders together, I’m going to be looking for dancing.

Update

Dale Hoyt left a helpful comment that points out that the abdomen isn’t actually touching the ground when when the sounds are being made. I had assumed it was a trick of the lighting but looking closer now, there really doesn’t appear to be any contact. Luckily he suggested the search term “stridulation” (a shrill grating, chirping, or hissing sound made by rubbing body parts together) that produced much better results from the literature. The video may have been from (or based on a) study by Elias, Mason, Maddison and Hoy where they studied the vibrational aspects of spider dancing. Their experimental setup sounds a lot like what’s in the video:

The arena substrate floor for courtship was a sheet of graph paper attached to a square cardboard frame (60 cm×45 cm). Females were tethered as above [anesthetized with CO2 and attached to a wire with low melting point wax], and the male’s seismic signals recorded using a piezo-electric sensor placed directly underneath the tethered female.

Didn’t seem to bother the male much that she was unconscious and restrained. Anyway, the researchers found three different types of seismic signaling and labeled them (using highly technical terminology): thumps, buzzes and scrapes. They made a really cool figure that demonstrates each of the types:

Top panels show body positions, with numbers (1–5) illustrating movements of the forelegs and abdomen. Middle panels show the position of one of the forelegs (mm above the substrate). Bottom panels show the oscillograms of the seismic signals.

Thump signal: Front legs come down (1–2), contact the substrate and quickly move back up (2–3). Shortly afterwards the abdomen is pulled back and released, and the abdomen ‘rings’ at 58.3 Hz (4–5). Thumps are broadband signals with peak frequencies at 203 Hz and 1203 Hz. Production of signal corresponds with the percussive contact of the front legs against the substrate (1–2) and movements of the abdomen (4–5).

Scrape signal: Abdomen moves up (1–2) and shortly afterwards the front legs come down (2–3). Scrapes occur in groups with a frequency of 5.7 Hz. Scrapes are broadband signals with peak frequencies at 230 Hz and 550 Hz. Production of seismic signal corresponds to movements of the abdomen.

Buzz signal: Front legs come down (1–2) as the abdomen oscillates at 65 Hz (1–2). This signal has a fundamental frequency at 65 Hz with several harmonic frequencies (130 Hz, 195 Hz and 260 Hz). Production of seismic signal corresponds with movements of the front legs and abdomen.

[Edited slightly]

Elias et al. found that thumps came from the front legs impacting the ground, scrapes were produced by rubbing together a set of bristles between the head and body, and buzzes were made by the spider vibrating its body. They note that their research species (Habronattus dossenus) is the only species known to produce all three of these signals. It sounds like the spider in the video does all three of these so I guess that means it’s a H. dossenus.

In a follow up study, Elias, Hebets, Hoy and Mason investigated the results of muting the males by using wax to connect the spider’s head and body. They found females were more likely to mate and waited less time before mating with vibrating males. In addition, many of the muted males were eaten before getting a chance to mate.

I’m glad I finally tracked down the rest of the story (I hope). It turns out that some spiders bang their abdomens against the ground but the spider in the video is actually do a much more complex dance. Spider sure have some interesting mating patterns.

References

A. P. Noordam. 2002. Abdominal percussion and ventral scutum in male Euophrys frontalis (Araneae: Salticidae). Entomologische Berichten, Amsterdam. 62:17-19

A. L. Rypstra, C. Wieg, S. E. Walker & M. H. Persons. 2003. Mutual mate assessment in wolf spiders: differences in the cues used by males and females. Ethology. 109:315-325

D. O. Elias, A. C. Mason, W. P. Maddison & R. R. Hoy. 2005. Seismic signals in a courting male jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Journal of Experimental Biology, 206:4029-4039

D. O. Elias, E. A. Hebets, R. R. Hoy & A. C. Mason. 2005. Seismic signals are crucial for male mating success in a visual specialist jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Animal Behaviour. 69:931–938

Thanks to Harley for showing me the video

(Another) Update: TheBrummel confirms that the video came from Dr. Madisson or his group and points to a bunch of additional courtship videos of jumping spiders.

When fertile, females of this species wait outside the nest each night waiting for a flying male to show up. When a male flies in, he courts her a bit and then they mate. After the successful coupling, the two remain stuck together while the female drags her suitor inside the nest. She then curls around and bites the males abdomen in half, leaving the male to die while she walks off with his genitals and the lower half of his body. Since this seems like a rather strange thing to do, two researchers (Moonin and Peeters) decided to investigate whether this amputation acted as a rather gruesome copulation plug preventing other males from mating. They found that other males were unable to mate while the severed body of their rival was blocking access and that by the time the female removed the male pieces about a half hour later she was no longer interested in sex. The female ants were never observed mating again.

While this may at first glance seem pretty detrimental to the male, males have little chance of finding another fertile female and the payoff for a successful mating is offspring for the entire life of the female so the male is well rewarded in the evolutionary sense although he doesn’t look too happy in this sketch of the female about to separate him from his lower half.

The sketches in the article were interesting but I had been hoping for pictures. Luckily, Monnin (the lead author) has a website covering his many studies of the queenless ant and includes the pictures the paper’s sketches were based off of and many other cool pictures.

If you were wondering what exactly is going on in the picture above, the biologists Allard, Gobin, Ito, Tsuji and Billen set out to answer your question. They decided to catch a similar species of ants in the act, cut a thin section out of the center of them and see how everything was connecting.

Their caption left me looking for a dictionary so I’ve inserted definitions in []‘s:

Longitudinal section through copulating pair of Diacamma sp. showing male aedeagus [the whole male reproductive parts on the end of the abdomen] inserted inside female genital tract, and spermatophore (SP) [a packet of sperm] inside oviduct [passage from ovaries to outside]. Arrow points at strand connecting spermatophore to male gonopore [hole where sperm comes out]. Note cross section of sting (S), which is directed sideways by female during copulation. Scale bar: 1 mm.
Fig. 2. Schematical representation of fig. 1.
Fig. 3. Detail showing volsellar digitus (D) [bottom part of claspers for holding onto female] and cuspis (C) [top part of claspers for holding onto female] of male clasping the last sternite [the tail end of the abdomen] of female (arrow) during copulation. Scale bar: 100 um.
B: bursa copulatrix [insect vagina]; C: cuspis; D: digitus; P: inflated penis; PV: penis valves; S: sting; SP: spermatophore; VS: vesicula seminalis [sperm storage].

You may be wondering how they could cut such a thin slice out of a pair of ants. It turns out they fix the ants in place by submerging them in a clear plastic and then cut a tiny section through them with a double bladed saw. Reminds me of undergrad, when I had to do something similar when sectioning fish ear bones for aging.

If you were still curious, they also extracted the ant penis. I’m not too sure what the purpose of that was but if a trivia question ever asks how many lobes an ant penis has, we’ll now know the answer is 2.

The letters correspond to P: inflated bilobe penis; PA: paramere [case for penis when not in use]; PV: penis valve.

References

Monnin T. & Peeters C. 1998. Monogyny and regulation of worker mating in the queenless ant Dinoponera quadriceps Animal Behaviour. 55:299–306

Allard, D., Gobin, B., Ito, F. Tsuji, K. & Billen, J. 2002. Sperm transfer in the Japanese queenless ant Diacamma sp. Netherlands Journal of Zoology. 52:77-86