Loss of any one of several neurogenic genes of Drosophila results in overproduction of embryonic neuroblasts at the expense of epidermoblasts. In this paper a variety of altered Notch proteins are expressed in transgenic flies. Dominant lethal, antineurogenic phenotypes were produced by expression of three classes of mutant proteins: (1) a protein comprised of the cytoplasmic domain of Notch and devoid of sequences permitting membrane association; (2) a transmembrane protein lacking the extracellular, lin12/Notch repeats; and (3) transmembrane proteins carrying amino acid substitutions replacing one or both extracellular cysteines thought to be involved in Notch dimerization. These Notch proteins not only suppress the neural hypertrophy observed in Notch- embryos, but also generate a phenotype in which elements of the embryonic nervous system are underproduced. Action of the intracellular cdc10 repeats appears to be essential for wild-type Notch function or for the antineurogenic activity of these proteins. The activities of the dominant, gain-of-function proteins indicate that Notch functions as a signal transducing receptor during ectoderm development. Production of antineurogenic Notch proteins in embryos deficient for the other neurogenic genes allowed functional dependencies to be established. Delta, mastermind, bigbrain, and neuralized appear to function in elaboration of a signal upstream of Notch. Genes of the Enhancer of split complex act after Notch. The cytoplasmic domain of Notch contains nuclear localization sequences that function in cultured cells, and one of the Notch antineurogenic proteins, the cytoplasmic domain, accumulates in nuclei in vivo.

The Drosophilia melanogaster alcohol dehydrogenase (Adh) gene is transcribed from two closely linked promoters, which are regulated by two upstream enhancers. The proximal promoter is active primarily in first to early third-instar larvae, whereas the distal promoter is active in late third-instar larvae and adults. The Adh larval enhancer and the proximal promoter are separated by the Adh adult enhancer and the distal promoter. Because the proximal promoter is turned off just as the distal promoter is turned on, we considered the possibility that the distal promoter or adult enhancer has a role in the downregulation of the proximal promoter. We report here that transcription from the distal promoter is required to shut off the proximal promoter. In the absence of the distal promoter, the proximal promoter is active throughout larval development and in adults. The proximal promoter is also aberrantly active in adults when placed upstream of the distal promoter. These results suggest that the developmental switch from proximal to distal promoter is regulated by the stage-specific activation of the distal promoter, and the subsequent repression of the proximal promoter by transcriptional interference.

No abstract

In the Drosophila eye, neighboring ommatidia are separated by inter-ommatidial cells (IOCs). How this ommatidial spacing emerges during eye development is not clear. Here we demonstrate that four adhesion molecules of the Irre cell recognition module (IRM) family play a redundant role in maintaining separation of ommatidia. The four IRM proteins are divided into two groups: Kirre and Rst are expressed in IOCs, and Hbs and Sns in primary pigment cells (1°s). Kirre binds Hbs and Sns in vivo and in vitro. Reducing activity of either Rst or Kirre alone had minimal effects on ommatidial spacing, but reducing both together led to direct ommatidium:ommatidium contact. A similar phenotype was also observed when reducing both Hbs and Sns. Consistent with the role of these factors in sorting ommatidia, mis-expression of Hbs plus Sns within a single IOC led to complete separation of the cell from neighboring ommatidia. Our results indicate mutual preferential adhesion between ommatidia and IOCs mediated by four IRM proteins is both necessary and sufficient to maintain separation of ommatidia.

The Drosophila melanogaster alcohol dehydrogenase (Adh) gene is transcribed from two promoters active at different developmental stages. In this paper we show that the promoters are differentially stimulated by two enhancers, the Adh larval enhancer and the Adh adult enhancer. In early larval stages, the larval enhancer stimulates transcription from the proximal promoter; in late larval stages, the two enhancers act synergistically to stimulate transcription from the distal promoter; and in adults, the adult enhancer stimulates transcription from the distal promoter. To determine the basis for these enhancer-promoter interactions, we examined the effect of each enhancer on three different promoters. We found that the adult enhancer is stage specific and stimulates transcription from all three promoters. In contrast, the larval enhancer is potentially active in all stages and stimulates transcription from only two of the three promoters. These observations suggest that normal temporal expression of Adh depends on the stage-specific activity of the adult enhancer and the differential response of the proximal and distal promoters to the larval enhancer.