MbShea@PWP@English@UMCP

Abstract:
Insects all have segmented body plans. The genes responsible for this segmentation have been studied extensively in Drosophila melanogaster. These genes have been characterized into groups: gap genes, which define large groups of segments, pair-rule genes, which define individual segments, and segment polarity genes, which break each segment into anterior and posterior sides. The roles and expression patterns of orthologs of Drosophila melanogaster pair-rule genes in Oncopeltus fasciatus have been the focus of this research. This work will contribute to the understanding of body plan development in Oncopeltus. Further, as a comparative study of pair rule genes across species, the work will provide insight into how these important regulatory genes have changed during evolution. Paired, a pair-rule gene in Drosophila, has been identified as an ideal candidate for pair-rule gene studies in Oncopeltus because it maintains pair-rule expression before and after Oncopeltus on the insect phylogenetic tree and over evolution. 6 candidate orthologs of Drosophila paired were identified using existing transcriptome and genomic data from Oncopeltus. Orthologs were further narrowed down with BLAST analysis and RT-PCR. The remaining orthologs are being studied to see whether they play a role in Oncopeltus segmentation. This analysis is done by examining their expression patterns by in situ hybridization and determining their functions with RNAi. The expectation is to find that some orthologs of Drosophila pair-rule genes express and act similarly to the Drosophila genes, while others do not, showing changes during evolution of diverse species.

Reader Profile: I am a person with an understanding of science who doesn’t understand the point of this research.

Reader’s Response:
While this work seems interesting – what is the point? I don’t understand the relevance of your research at all. Why does studying insect segmentation contribute to our advancement and as human race at all? Why doesn’t the author redirect their research to something more applicable – like biomedical research, something that actually matters. I don’t know if I see the point in continuing to read this because it just seems so meaningless, even though the techniques and logic behind each step of the research are interesting. It seems the author is explaining that this research is pertinent to evolutionary biology and that the work on conserved domains can relate to conserved domains/genes in humans. Hmmm…perhaps her research is more relevant than I thought. It’s not directly relevant, but it does have a purpose in the greater scheme of evolution and molecular biology.

L -- will read with interest and joy, for I adore basic research questions as much as the applied ones.