Drosophila melanogaster is an outstanding model organism for studying innate immune systems and the physiological consequences of infection and disease. This protocol describes how to deliver robust and quantitatively repeatable bacterial infections to D. melanogaster, and how to subsequently measure infection severity and quantify the host immune response.
The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is one of the premier model organisms for studying the function and evolution of immune defense. Many aspects of innate immunity are conserved between insects and mammals, and since Drosophila can readily be genetically and experimentally manipulated, they are powerful for studying immune system function and the physiological consequences of disease. The procedure demonstrated here allows infection of flies by introduction of bacteria directly into the body cavity, bypassing epithelial barriers and more passive forms of defense and allowing focus on systemic infection. The procedure includes protocols for the measuring rates of host mortality, systemic pathogen load, and degree of induction of the host immune system. This infection procedure is inexpensive, robust and quantitatively repeatable, and can be used in studies of functional genetics, evolutionary life history, and physiology.
The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is one of the premier model organisms for studying the function and evolution of immune defense. Drosophila are inexpensive and easy to rear, are highly amenable to experimental manipulation, and are backed by an extensive scientific community that has developed a broad array of research tools. Many aspects of innate immunity are conserved between insects and mammals, including signal transduction mediated by Toll-like receptors and NF-kB family transcription factors, JAK/STAT signaling, and JNK pathway responses.1,2 The function of these genes and pathways can be queried in D. melanogaster using mutations or RNAi knockdowns that increase or decrease pathway activities.3–6 Additionally, Drosophila can be used to study the physiological consequences of infection and disease, including in the context of evolutionary life history theory.7–9 All such studies, however, depend on the ability to reliably infect experimental flies under defined treatment conditions. The procedure described here presents a methodological framework for delivering robust and repeatable bacterial infections to Drosophila melanogaster and subsequently measuring infection severity and quantifying the host immune response.
Drosophila can be naturally and experimentally infected by a wide variety of parasites and pathogens, including bacteria, fungi, viruses, nematodes and parasitoid wasps. The current protocol is focused on delivering systemic bacterial infection. Many different bacteria can be used to infect flies, and the experimenter’s choice should be based on the precise scientific questions being asked. For example, human clinical isolates may be employed to study bacterial virulence mechanisms10, or ecologically relevant isolates may be preferred for evolutionary study.11 Some bacteria are competent pathogens of D. melanogaster, proliferating upon infection and causing host sickness or death. Other bacteria are effectively managed by the host immune system and cleared within a few days. In this demonstration, Providencia rettgeri will be used as a proliferative pathogen that can cause host mortality and persists in surviving hosts. Escherichia coli will be used as a non-pathogen that is cleared by the host immune system.
Infection will be established by introduction of bacteria directly into the body cavity of the fly. This approach bypasses epithelial barriers and protective behaviors, allowing investigation of systemic infection irrespective of the natural mode of transmission. There are two primary methods for experimentally establishing systemic infection. In the first, a nanoinjector and pulled glass capillary needles are used to inject a precise number of bacteria into the fly. This method has the advantages of allowing a large dynamic range of infection doses and of being quantitatively highly repeatable. The second approach is to deliver infection with a septic pinprick. This approach has the advantages of being rapid and requiring no special equipment. Once the infections are established, it becomes possible to measure systemic pathogen load, host mortality, and inducible immune system activity. Of course, any number of additional phenotypes could conceivably be measured in infected D. melanogaster, including post-infection fecundity12, learning ability13, metabolic status14, or virtually any other trait that can be imagined.
1. Collect and Prepare Flies
2. Culture and Prepare Bacteria
3. Infect the Flies
NOTE: As Drosophila immunity is influenced by circadian rhythm, it is important to perform infections at a similar time of day across experimental replicates.16
3.1) Using a Nanoinjector
3.2) With Septic Pinprick
3.3) Assess the Infectious Dose Delivered
4. Characterize Survivorship of Infection
5. Assay Bacterial Load Post-infection
6. Assay Transcriptional Activation of Immune System Genes
This section illustrates results that can be obtained after bacterial infection of Drosophila melanogaster. Figure 1 shows that infection dose varies with optical density of the bacterial suspension used for injection, and that the dose delivered can be reliably estimated by homogenizing and plating flies immediately after injection. As illustrated in Figure 2, different pathogens can cause different levels of host mortality (Figure 2A) and host mortality can be dose-dependent (Figure 2B). Importantly, this protocol allows for different types of infections to be achieved: Providencia rettgeri can cause a chronic, sub-lethal infection that persists for 20 days or longer (Figure 3A). However, other bacteria like Escerichia coli will mostly be cleared by the host fly within six hours post-infection (Figure 3B). Induction of the immune system can be estimated through RNA isolation and subsequent qRT-PCR of antibacterial peptide transcripts (Figure 4A and B). Analogously but less quantitatively, flies expressing GFP under the control of antimicrobial peptide gene promoters can be used to visualize induction of the immune system (Figure 4C).
Figure 1: Determining Infectious Dose. Flies were injected with 50 nl of bacterial suspensions covering a range of optical densities (0.0001 – 0.05). The flies were immediately homogenized and plated to determine the number of bacterial introduced by the injection. Initial bacterial load strongly correlates with initial OD injected (r2 = 0.96)
Figure 2: Survival after Injection with Bacterial Pathogens. Five to seven day old males were injected with 50 nl of either bacterial suspension or sterile media and monitored for survival. (A) Wild type flies were injected with approximately 5,000 bacteria from of one of three different species. The rate of host mortality depends heavily on the bacterial species used for infection. (B) Wild type flies were injected with three different doses of Enterococcous faecalis – 50, 500, and 5,000 bacteria per fly. Flies die more quickly when infected with higher infectious doses (C) An immune system mutant and its wild-type isogenic control line were injected with approximately 500 Burkholderia cepacia. A pairwise Log-Rank comparison shows that the wild-type fly survives the infection significantly better than the mutant (χ2 = 59.02, df = 1, p <0.0001).
Figure 3: Bacterial Load after Injection. Flies were injected with approximately (A) 5,000 P. rettgeri (B) 3,400 E. coli. Bacterial load was determined immediately after injection and at various subsequent time points. Each data point represents the bacterial load of a single fly. E. coli is quickly cleared from challenged hosts while P. rettgeri persists for the remainder of the host’s life,.
Figure 4: Induction of Immune Gene Expression after Injection. (A) Flies were injected with 50 nl of P. rettgeri or sterile PBS in either the abdomen or thorax, or were left unmanipulated aside from CO2 anesthesia. Six hours after infection, flies were collected for RNA isolation and expression of the Diptericin A gene was determined using qRT-PCR. (A) Expression levels are graphed as the ratio of Diptericin A transcript to rp49 transcript and scaled such that the CO2 control is defined as having an expression level of 1. The bars represent the mean and standard error of ratios from each condition (n = 4). (B) Expression levels are graphed as a 2ΔΔCT with the average CT value from CO2 aesthesia control flies used as the standard uninduced condition. The bars represent the mean and standard error of ΔΔCT from each condition (n = 4). While there is no difference in transcript induction due to site of injection, comparison of panels A and B shows how the ΔΔCT method can potentially overestimate induction levels. (C) Flies expressing GFP under control of the Diptericin A promoter were injected with 50 nl of P. rettgeri (OD = 0.1) and then imaged 7 days later. The GFP panel shows expression of GFP in the abdominal fat body of infected flies, indicating activation of the Diptericin A promoter in bacterially-infected flies but not media-injected controls.
Gene | Forward | Reverse |
rp49 (also called rpL32) | 5’ AGGCCCAAGATCGTGAAGAA 3’ | 5’ GACGCACTCTGTTGTCGATACC 3’ |
Diptericin A | 5’ GCGGCGATGGTTTTGG 3’ | 5’ CGCTGGTCCACACCTTCTG 3’ |
Drosomycin | 5’ CTGCCTGTCCGGAAGATACAA 3’ | 5’ TCCCTCCTCCTTGCACACA 3’ |
Defensin | 5’ GAGGATCATGTCCTGGTGCAT 3’ | 5’ TCGCTTCTGGCGGCTATG 3’ |
Attacin A | 5’ CGTTTGGATCTGACCAAGG 3’ | 5’ AAAGTTCCGCCAGGTGTGAC 3’ |
Metchnikowan | 5’ AACTTAATCTTGGAGCGATTTTTCTG 3’ | 5’ ACGGCCTCGTATCGAAAATG 3’ |
Table 1: Primers for qRT-PCR.
The procedure described here yields rigorous and high quality infection of Drosophila melanogaster. The illustrated examples primarily focused on infection with Providencia rettgeri and E. coli, but the protocol is highly adaptable and can be applied to infections with diverse bacteria over a range of host rearing and maintenance conditions.
The details of an optimal experimental approach will depend on the bacterium used for infection, the genotype of the host, and the overall experimental conditions. It is strongly recommended to pilot test any new experimental conditions before initiating more ambitious projects. A good starting point is to test three infection doses over a 100-fold range. Highly virulent pathogens are often best introduced at very low infectious doses, on the order of 10 – 100 bacterial cells per fly. More moderate pathogens can be injected at higher doses of around 1,000 bacteria per fly, and non-pathogens may be injected at doses as high as 10,000 bacteria per fly. It is often instructive to define the kinetics of novel infections by tracking pathogen load, host mortality, and immune system activity over a longitudinal time series. Because measurement of pathogen load and host gene expression are destructive assays, it is necessary to infect distinct flies at the outset of the experiment for every time point that is to be measured.
When deciding whether to use pinprick or microcapillary-based injection, it is important to note there are advantages and limitations to each approach. Capillary injection introduces a volume of liquid into the fly, which both modestly increases turgor pressure and introduces salts or other molecules that are suspended or dissolved in the carrier. Capillary injection also requires access to an injection facility or purchase of the required equipment. Septic pinprick requires no special equipment and introduces negligible media into the fly, and is typically more efficient for infecting large numbers of flies. However, pinprick infections do not allow the precise control over infection dose that can be achieved with capillary injection. The present protocol focused on an injection apparatus that mechanically regulates injection volume, but there are also injection systems based on discrete pulses of pressurized air.20,21 These are typically more expensive than the apparatus featured here and require calibration of the air pulse to each needle in order to ensure consistent injection volumes.
There is considerable debate but very little data on how flies become systemically infected with bacteria in the wild. Some investigators posit that the majority of natural infections occur when Drosophila ingest pathogenic bacteria and the bacteria are subsequently able to escape the gut to establish a systemic infection. However, there are very few bacteria known to be able to cross the gut of D. melanogaster, and those that do have this ability are highly lethal to flies22,23. An alternative theory is that flies regularly sustain cuticular injuries through escape from failed predation attempts or attack by ectoparasitic mites. This hypothesis is supported by the frequent collection of wild D. melanogaster bearing melanization spots that are indicative of healed wounds (unpublished observations). Mites have been shown to transmit bacterial infections in Drosophila24 and wounds left by mites can be secondarily infected by bacteria in honey bees25. However, the frequency in nature of mite-driven or otherwise opportunistic infection of D. melanogaster through cuticle breaches is not known. The protocol described here allows introduction of bacteria directly into the hemolymph through quantitative injection which bypasses any epithelial barriers or behavioral immunity. Methods for feeding pathogenic bacteria to D. melanogaster have been described in Vodovar et al.22 and Nehme et al.23.
Many entomopathogenic bacteria pose little or no human health risk, allowing researchers to work with them comfortably. Furthermore, very few bacteria have the capacity to infect Drosophila on contact without experimental intervention, so the risk of “epidemic” spread of bacterial infection through a laboratory via contaminated surfaces or escaped flies is generally very low. Nonetheless, it is advisable to ensure that adequate containment measures are in place to prevent infected flies from escaping and for recapturing any escaped flies. The laboratory should be outfitted at a biological safety level commensurate with that of the pathogens being used, and standard best practices in microbiology should be employed.
The experimental infection method described here allows infections of Drosophila melanogaster with any dose of any arbitrary bacterium. Once infection has been established, it is straightforward to measure the kinetics of bacterial proliferation or clearance, to track host mortality, and to assay induction of the host immune system. Infected flies can easily be subjected to other phenotypic assays, including tests of physiological functions that may shape or be shaped by the infection. The procedures described are inexpensive, require relatively little specialized equipment, and are easily learned, making them amenable for use in diverse projects across a breadth of research and teaching labs.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
We would like to thank the entire Lazzaro lab, and especially Susan Rottschaefer, for their help in both reviewing and testing these protocols. This is a product of their cumulative expertise. Work in the Lazzaro lab is supported by grants R01 AI083932 and R01 AI064950 from the US National Institutes of Health.
Reagent | Company | Part Number |
Incubator | Powers Scientific, Inc | DROS52SD |
Paintbrush | ||
CO2 Flypads | FlyStuff | 59-114 |
CO2 | Airgas | CD FG50 |
Drosophila rearing mix | ||
6 oz Square Bottom Bottles, polypropylene | Genesee Scientific | 32-130 |
Nosterile Extra Large Cotton Balls | Fisher brand | 22-456-882 |
Microscope | Olympus Corporation | SZ51 |
Drosophila Vials polystyrene | VWR international | 89092-720 |
Nosterile Large Cotton Balls | Fisher brand | 22-456-883 |
2L flask | VWR international | 89000-370 |
Petri Dishes with Clear Lids, Raised Ridge; 100 . x 15 mm; | VWR international | 25384-302 |
LB Agar, Miller | Difco | 244520 |
Innoculing Loop | VWR international | 80094-488 |
Rainin Clasic Pipettes in various sizes 0.1 µl to 2 µl, 2 µl to 20 µl, 20 µl to 200 µl, 100 µl to 1000 |
Rainin | PR-2 PR-20 PR-200 PR-1000 |
Micropipette tips (assorted sizes) | VWR international | 30128-376 53503-810 16466-008 |
Luria Broth Base, Miller | Difco | 241420 |
Disposable Culture Tubes Borosilicate Glass | VWR international | 47729-576 |
S-500 Orbital Shaker | VWR international | 14005-830 |
centrifuge | VWR international | 37001-300 |
PBS pH 7.4 10x | Invitrogen | 70011044 |
SmartSpec 3000 Spectrophotometer | Bio-Rad | 170-2501 |
Semimicrovolume Cuvettes | Bio-Rad | 223-9955 |
Vertical Capillary Puller | Kopf Needle Pipette Puller | |
3.5'' Replacement glass Capillaries for Nanojet II | Drummond Sientific Company | 3-000-203-G/X |
Nanoject II | Drummond Sientific Company | 3-000-204 |
Forceps | Fine Science Tools | 11255-20 |
10mL Syringe | BD | 309604 |
Mineral Oil, White, light | Macron Fine Chemicals | 6358-10 |
minutein pins | Fine Science Tools | 26002-10 |
1.5mL Microcentrifuge tubes; Seal Rite | USA Scientific Inc. | 1615-5500 |
Motorized Pestle; Talboys Laboratory Stirrer | Troemner | 103 |
Talboys High Throughput Homogenizer | OPS Diagnostics | 930145 |
5/32'' Grinding Balls | OPS Diagnostics | GBSS 156-5000-01 |
Vortex Genie | Scientific indurstries inc. | G560 |
Multichannel Pipettor (10uL-300uL) | Sartorius | 730360 |
WASP2 Whitley Automated Spiral Plater | Microbiology International | |
ProtoCOL automated colony counter / plate counter/ plate reader | Microbiology International | |
TRIzol | Life Technologies | 15596-026 |
qPCR tubes; Low-Profile 0.2 ml 8-Tube Strips | Bio-Rad | TLS0801 |
qPCR caps; Optical Flat 8-Cap Strips | Bio-Rad | TCS0803 |
RQ1 RNase-Free DNase | Promega | m610a |
M-MLV Reverse Transcriptase | Promega | m170b |
dNTPs | Promega | U1240 |
Oligo-dT | IDT | |
SsoAdvanced SYBR Green Supermix | Bio-Rad | 172-5260 |
CFX Connect Real-Time PCR Detection System | Bio-Rad | 185-5200 |
RNasin Ribonuclease Inhibitor | Promega | N2115 |