$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Drosophila melanogaster was introduced to the scientific community as a potentially powerful model organism more than 100 years ago. That potential has been firmly validated in several areas of the biological and biomedical sciences, such as genetics, evolution, developmental biology, neurobiology, and molecular and cell biology. As a result, six Nobel Prizes in Medicine or Physiology have been awarded to ten Drosophila researchers who have substantially contributed to our understanding of heredity, mutagenesis, innate immunity, circadian rhythms, olfaction and development1. Perhaps more importantly, D. melanogaster has not ceased to provide us with new models of human biology and diseases, as a quick search on PubMed reveals almost 600 publications in the last 5 years, using the search term "drosophila model" (2, as of February, 2021). In the US, where Drosophila is a wide spread model organism in the biomedical community, about 2.2% of all R01 research awards granted by the NIH in 2015 were allocated to Drosophila researchers3. In Brazil, on the other hand, a search for currently funded projects on the website of the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), the most important funding agency for research in all scientific areas in the state of Sao Paulo, showed only 24 grants and fellowships with Drosophila as the main subject of study4. Considering all 13205 projects currently funded by FAPESP (5, as of February, 2021), those 24 Drosophila projects represent a ratio of less than 0.2% of the total projects, which is nearly 12 fold lower than that of the NIH. If we remove the funded projects that aim at studying Drosophila from an ecological and/or evolutionary point of view, and assume that the remaining projects use this organism as a model for understanding human biological processes in health and disease, that ratio decreases to a shocking ~0.1%.
In fact, a proper investigation is warranted to reveal the reasons why Drosophila research in Brazil/Sao Paulo does not appear to be as significant in number of funded projects. Culturing Drosophila is not expensive6,7,8 and is relatively simple, as unlike vertebrates, no permission from a bioethical committee is necessary for experimentation9,10. An approval to work with genetically modified fly lines is, however, required in Brazil11, adding a layer of bureaucracy inherent to all work involving genetically modified organisms. However, this would likely not prevent interested researchers from initiating a flylab. We speculate that misinformation about the power of the model, and about the expected high costs associated with setting up a flylab and performing meaningful experiments are important factors in this decision. As for most science equipment and supplies, the appropriate apparatuses to perform general fly maintenance and behavioral analyses must be imported into Brazil from North America, Europe and/or elsewhere, which is an expensive and extremely time consuming process12,13.
Recently, an alternative to importing specialized apparatuses has emerged as 3D printers have become more affordable and accessible to any person, including Drosophila researchers in developing countries. The 3D-printing technology has been widely used in the last 10 years by members of the "maker culture", which is based on the idea of self-sufficiency over exclusively relying on company manufactured products14. Such an idea has always been present in academic research laboratories around the globe, so it is not surprising that 3D printers have become standard lab equipment in many places15,16. For a number of years, we have been 3D-printing fly vial racks, mating arenas, climbing apparatus, among other devices, for a fraction of the cost of brand-named equivalents. The reduced costs of printing and assembling homemade lab equipment is classically represented by the FlyPi, which can be built for less than €100.00 and serves as a light and fluorescence microscope able to use sophisticated opto- and thermogenetic stimulation of the genetically tractable zebrafish, Drosophila and nematodes15. Here, we provide a series of protocols for anyone interested in becoming a Drosophila researcher (or in expanding his/her own existing flylab) to 3D-print many of the necessary material. By investing time and developing a little expertise, the reader will even be able to optimize the protocols presented here to print apparatuses better adapted to his/her own research needs.
However, a flylab is not a place for "cheap" equipment only, especially when one intends to associate behavioral analyses with underlying metabolic phenomena. We have also been interested in the roles of mitochondria in the modulation of Drosophila behavioral patterns, as these organelles are responsible for the bulk production of ATP in most tissues through several metabolic pathways whose products converge to oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS). Analyzing mitochondrial oxygen consumption as a way to understand mitochondrial metabolism does require an oxygraph, which is a more sophisticated piece of equipment that unfortunately cannot yet be 3D-printed. Because OXPHOS impacts practically all cellular processes since it depends on a series of exergonic redox reactions that occur in the cell17,18, oxygen consumption rates based on the oxidizable substrate provided to mitochondria may help reveal whether the organelle´s functioning is cause or consequence of a particular behavior. Therefore, we also provide here a protocol for measuring mitochondrial oxygen consumption in larva samples, as we realize the vast majority of published protocols are focused on analyzing adult samples. We show that changes in mitochondrial respiration, induced by the transgenic expression of the Ciona intestinalis alternative oxidase (AOX), leads to increased larval mobility under cold stress. This is most likely due to thermogenesis, since AOX is a non-proton pumping terminal oxidase that can bypass the activity of OXPHOS complexes III and IV (CIII and CIV), without contributing to the mitochondrial membrane potential (ΔΨm) and ATP production19,20,21. No insect, including Drosophila, or vertebrate naturally possesses AOX21,22,23, but its expression in a myriad of model systems24,25,26,27,28,29 has been successful to show its therapeutic potential for conditions of general mitochondrial respiratory stress, especially when caused by CIII and/or CIV overload. AOX confers resistance to toxic levels of antimycin A24 and cyanide24,25, and mitigates diverse phenotypes related to mitochondrial disfunction24,25,30,31,32. The fact that AOX expression changes larval behavior and mitochondrial function justifies more in-depth studies of this enzyme's roles in the metabolism and physiology of metazoan cells and tissues33,34.
We hope that with this article we can help raise awareness within the scientific community of developing countries such as Brazil that using the excellent genetic toolset that D. melanogaster presents, in combination with efficient and affordable homemade apparatuses for behavioral analyses, can generate relatively fast basic research data on interesting biological processes with significant translational impact, supporting future therapeutic studies in clinical research. Developing such communal ideals would greatly benefit Drosophilists, medical researchers, and the biological and biomedical sciences. Most importantly, it would benefit society in general, as public funding could be applied more translationally to understand and treat human diseases.
The protocols we provide here for 3D printing the apparatuses for a flylab were designed for use with the RepRap 3D printer, based on the Prusa I3 DIY model available at35. We use the 1.75-mm white polylactic acid (PLA) filament (SUNLU) as raw material for printing, the Tinkercad platform36 for model design, and the Repetier-Host software37 for STL to G-Code conversion, a necessary step to provide coordinates to the printer. Further optimization of the protocols is required should the reader want to use alternative equipment, materials and software.