$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
This data shows that the impact of CO2 anaesthesia is inconsistent between species, with two of three species showing little impact. Our results suggest labelling with food dye had a lower impact on male mating success than CO2 anaesthesia for D. melanogaster. These experiments demonstrate that food dyes can easily and cheaply be used to label flies for mating assays involving multiple males.
Of the three model Drosophila species examined, only D. melanogaster showed an effect of CO2 anaesthesia on mating performance in a competitive situation. In contrast, none of the species showed an effect of collection on gas in single mating trials in terms of mating latency, contrary to previous results for D. melanogaster5. The effect of competition could therefore be highlighting more subtle fitness effects of CO2 anaesthesia, which are only detectable under situations where there is male-male competition. Exposure at early collection and one day prior to the trial have a negative effect on the ability of males of D. melanogaster to gain a mating. Exposure two days prior to the trial however did not show any effect. Both D. pseudoobscura and D. subobscura did not show any effect of exposure to gas in any of the trials. One explanation is that D. melanogaster was vulnerable to early exposure to CO2 because it must be collected earlier in life (0 - 6 hr old) than the other species to ensure males are virgin. Hence male D. melanogaster of this age may be more sensitive as the cuticle of the fly is still hardening, compared to the other species which have had longer for their cuticle to harden. In general, this supports the idea that the effects of CO2 anaesthesia are species specific and investigators should appropriately test the effect in their target species. Currently, the majority of work on the effect of CO2 anaesthesia has been carried out on Drosophila melanogaster5,11,22 and therefore may not be appropriate to apply to other related species.
The alternative non-invasive method presented to differentiate flies is food dye. Results suggest this treatment had no effect in across all the species examined. However, while its use was successful in providing a cheap and easily visible marker for distinguishing between individuals it should be noted that the dye was easier to distinguish in D. pseudoobscura and D. subobscura than in D. melanogaster. Previous authors have used several colors (red, green and blue)4,6. We found blue coloring to be the easiest to distinguish in all species, particularly D. pseudoobscura and D. subobscura. Using several colors would potentially allow more complex experiments with many individually marked flies. However, preliminary tests of different dyes are essential, as some food dyes fail to color the flies, possibly being digested when consumed. Other dyes can have toxic effects and reduce survival of the flies, and should be avoided14). Alternative food coloring methods using more expensive stains have also been used for examining intestinal integrity for D. melanogaster23. These may provide an alternative, although more expensive, dyeing method23.
The dye method is as quick as CO2 wing clipping as flies can be stored on dyed food from collection. Uptake of the food was rapid (~ 3 hr), so storage O/N on colored food would also be sufficient to mark flies, as used in other studies6. However, the duration of the coloring is relatively short (~ 4 - 5 hr) compared to wing clipping (permanent) or fluorescent dust marking (10 - 12 days)24. As Drosophila species vary in appearance, different dyes will be more or less effective for different species, and as some strains (e.g., knock-out mutants) can be vulnerable to changes in diet, any use of dye requires a preliminary test of its effectiveness particularly if longer term exposure to dyes can be toxic14. In contrast to the study by Kalaw et al.14, we found no significant mortality after storage for multiple days on colored foods for D. melanogaster (3 days), D. pseudoobscura (5 days), or D. subobscura (7 days), probably due to the difference in dye used.
The critical step for successful use of the dye technique is step 1.5, validating that the chosen dye works well with the species and strain being used. An alternative technique involves applying colored dust to the outside of the fly prior to use in field experiments24. This method has been used for tracking individuals in the field due to the duration of marking and the ease of mass marking flies24. Although we have not explicitly tested this method in mating trials, it would be important to examine any effects that dust could have on the senses important in mating, particularly in Drosophila25, 26. In species, however, where intestinal dyeing is not possible, these methods could be suitable.
In conclusion we found that in two of the three species tested (D. pseudoobscura and D. subobscura) there was no effect found of either CO2 anaesthesia or food coloring on mating ability of males. For D. melanogaster a negative effect of CO2 anaesthesia was detected, but food coloring did not affect mating success in this species. Overall, the dye method provides a simple and cheap non-invasive method for identifying individual Drosophila that is equivalent or better than methods that require CO2 anaesthesia. It is likely this method would work across a range of species.