Insect Morphology Seminar – cuticle and resilin

We kicked off our insect morphology seminar a couple weeks ago, with a mini-lecture on insect cuticle and resilin by István Mikó. Over the subsequent seven days we combed the literature for cool papers about these topics, in preparation for a roundtable about all that’s current and relevant in cuticle research. I served as the scribe for this discussion – one I’d call a tour-de-force of morphology.

Our mission was to collect ~10 great papers about the mini-lecture topic, but the resulting bibliography was closer to 20. We used Mendeley to document the discovery process search and keep track others’ literary finds, which included papers on:

  1. insect cuticle-inspired laminates
  2. potential applications of a resilin-like protein to medicine
  3. functional significance of resilin in dragonfly wings
  4. using infrared spectroscopy of insect cuticle as an alternative to DNA barcoding
  5. structural coloration of cuticle in Coleoptera
  6. evolutionary significance of cuticule thickness in Dictyoptera
  7. metafemoral “spring” in Coleoptera
  8. application of chitin to wound healing

If I had to pick a winner, though, it would be Keith Bayless’s choice of this paper by Chaudhari et al. (2011), which describes the role of a protein called Knickkopf in the process of molting and forming new cuticle. Why this paper? Check out this line, from the abstract: “Protection of the newly synthesized cuticle from molting fluid enzymes has long been attributed to the presence of an impermeable envelope layer that was thought to serve as a physical barrier, preventing molting fluid enzymes from accessing the new cuticle and thereby ensuring selective degradation of only the old one.”

That’s exactly what István taught the students the week before – that the envelop protects developing cuticle from chitinase. Chaudhari et al., however, found chitinases on both sides of the envelope. It turns out that the Knickkopf protein, rather than physical exclusion, protects the newly formed cuticle from chitinases, at least in their model (Tribolium castaneum) (Yes, I am oversimplifying their results). By choosing this paper Keith directly challenged the knowledge his instructors – us – presented to the class just one week before. This got István and I thinking about other areas of our knowledge that might need to be updated … and I’m sure it’s a lot.

The roundtable was, of course, rich and varied, as we covered all those topics highlighted above. I think the topic – cuticle – served as a great reminder for all of us about just how complex this anatomical complex is, and really just how broad the relevant research is. Up next: Cuticular protuberances, including attachment devices. I can’t wait!

New observations on the prothoracic “wing” of treehoppers

Prud’homme et al. (2011) published a manuscript last May (2011) in Nature in which they demonstrated that the dorsal ornamentation of treehoppers (see examples here) was, in effect, the (re)expression in the prothorax of the genetic pathway responsible for wing development. No extant insects (of the >950,000 known species) have wings on this segment (prothorax), and the scientific community was flushed with excitement at this cool, new evolutionary story, especially over the apparent strength and diversity of their evidence (see some of our colleagues’ blog posts and news stories from last May: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

The key finding, upon which they expanded their molecular and morphological observations, was the presence of a true articulated (moveable) dorsal appendage on the 1st thoracic segment (T1; prothorax). According to their paper, the “helmet”, i.e. the pronotal ornamentation, is an independent sclerite that articulates with the rest of the prothorax. They provided a more detailed morphological description of the putative “prothorax-pronotal wing” articulation as well as studied the genes that are regulate the development of the “helmet”.

Reading the morphological description provided by them and the annotated figures in their supplementary documents, we were unable to understand this articulation. Insect morphology, however, is what drives us – it’s our passion. As such we were compelled to explore the system further, to enlighten ourselves about the complex anatomy of the first (extant, anyway) pronotal wing ever described.

Using razor blades and some glycerine-stored treehopper specimens, we quickly determined that there is no pronotal wing-prothorax articulation to describe and understand. The previous authors were describing the articulation between the prothorax and the mesothorax, and interpreting it as the pronotal wing articulation treating. The whole prothorax was considered to be a pronotal wing.

After realizing that there were fundamental morphology flaws we were faced with a more difficult problem: How to present our findings to non-morphologists, to a broader audience, who might not be too interested in an exhaustive comparative morphology result, especially if the descriptions involve internal structures.


How do we communicate complex morphology to a broader audience? Rich, annotated, and compelling images certainly help! A μ-computed tomography image of a treehopper, showing the limits of relevant sclerites. Referencing rapidly growing (and increasingly robust) anatomy ontologies is another way to be more explicit about structures.

After five moths of observation, writing, reviewing, responding to reviews, rewriting, re-imaging, etc. our observations are finally published in PLoS ONE ( doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030137) (we committed to an open access journal, given some of the complaints about Nature and other, similar journals being inaccessible to many interested readers).

In this paper we not only aim to offer a more comprehensive interpretation of treehopper thoracic morphology but also to take the next step in insect appendage/projection research. Although, there is no articulated appendage on the treehopper pronotum, treehoppers share the presence of a very interesting posterior flattened evagination, that itself shares multiple characteristics with the wing (although it is not articulated to the prothorax, but is the part of it):

  1. flattened, and hence the two layers are located relatively close to each other;
  2. the layers are separated in newly eclosed adults but are connected via columnar structures in older adults;
  3. hollow, trachea-containing, longitudinal structures extend along the length of PFE in mature adults;
  4. the lumen of the flattened evagination is continuous with the body cavity and hence contains fat body cell-like structures)

Our main finding is that this wing-like evagination is NOT unique to Membracidae, but rather is widely distributed across the phylogeny of Hemiptera. It was almost shocking to realize that the enlarged pronotum of a leaf-footed bug (Coreidae) is a flattened, wing-like, trachea-bearing evagination of the prothorax, and that the functional prothorax (area that serving as site of origin of muscles moving the head and the prolegs and connecting the prothorax with the mesothorax) is restricted only to a narrow anterior ring.

In the process of resubmitting our manuscript after its first round of changes, we learned that a colleague in Japan (Yoshizawa 2012; doi:10.1111/j.1365-3113.2011.00606.x) independently came to a very similar set of conclusions. It’ll be interesting to follow future research on this exciting observation!

2011 publishing accomplishments

I’ve been pulling together data for a report that summarizes our accomplishments last year, and I thought it was worth noting our publications for 2011, including manuscripts that were largely written in 2011 but don’t come until this year (yes, these are technically 2012 pubs, but that just means we get to count them now and in 2012 round-up!) In short, we had some great pubs in 2011, at least in my mind: a mix of high profile results (1,8), high profile reviews (7,9), a strong opinion (3), basic research (2,5,6,9), and a critical re-evaluation (4) of what was arguably the biggest splash in insect science last year – the treehopper prothoracic wing (“helmet”) paper by Prud’homme et al. in Nature.

  1. Copeland, RS, Kirk-Spriggs, AH, Muteti, S, Booth, W, Wiegmann, BM (2011) Rediscovery of the “terrible hairy fly”, Mormotomyia hirsuta Austen (Diptera: Mormotomyiidae), in eastern Kenya, with notes on biology, natural history, and genetic variation of the Ukasi Hill population. African Invertebrates 52 (2): 363-390.
  2. Deans, A. R. (2011) Evaniidae of Cuba (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Solenodon 9: 55-65.
  3. Deans, A. R., M. J. Yoder, J. P. Balhoff (2012) Time to change how we describe biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution (in press) doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.007
  4. Mikó, I., F. Friedrich, M. J. Yoder, H. M. Hines, L. L. Deitz, M. A. Bertone, K. C. Seltmann, M. S. Wallace, A. R. Deans (2012) On dorsal prothoracic appendages in treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae) and the nature of morphological evidence. PLoS ONE 7(1): e30137 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030137
  5. Sharkey, M. J., J. M. Carpenter, L. Vilhelmsen, J. Heraty, J. Liljeblad, A. P. G. Dowling, S. Schulmeister, D. Murray, A. R. Deans, F. Ronquist, L. Krogmann, W. C. Wheeler (2011) Phylogenetic relationships among superfamilies of Hymenoptera. Cladistics 27: 1-33. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00366.x
  6. Trautwein, M. D., B. M. Wiegmann, and D. K. Yeates. (2011) Overcoming the effects of rogue taxa: Evolutionary relationships of the bee flies. PLOS Currents: Tree of Life 2011, Feb 21.
  7. Trautwein, M. D., B. Wiegmann, R. Beutel, K. Kjer and D. K. Yeates (2012). Advances in insect phylogeny at the dawn of the postgenomic era. Annual Review of Entomology 57:449-68. doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120710-100538
  8. Wiegmann, B. M., M. D. Trautwein, I. S. Winkler, N. B. Barr, J. W. Kim, C. Lambkin, M. A. Bertone, B. K. Cassel, K. M. Bayless, A. M. Heimberg, B. M. Wheeler, K. J. Peterson, T. Pape, B. J. Sinclair, J. H. Skevington, V. Blagoderov, J. Caravas, S. N. Kutty, U. Schmidt-Ott, G. E. Kampmeier, F. C. Thompson, D. A. Grimaldi, A. T. Beckenbach, G. W. Courtney, M. Friedrich, R. Meier, and D. K. Yeates. (2011) Episodic radiations in the fly tree of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108 (14): 5690-5695. doi:10.1073/pnas.1012675108
  9. Yeates, D.K. and B.M. Wiegmann (2012). The impact of the Manual of Nearctic Diptera on Phylogenetic Dipterology. The Canadian Entomologist, in press.

I think the Mikó et al. paper (4) is worth a deeper exploration, so István or I willl try to write something up by this evening.

2012 = big changes at the NCSU Insect Museum

This year will be one of transition for the Insect Museum, as there will be a lot of turnover in personnel:

  • Matt Yoder has been instrumental in helping us set up and refine our specimen database, and he’s been an incredible colleague and mentor to our students. He is moving soon to the Species File project, and though we’ll always be collaborators we will miss having him around the Museum! Amy Bader, one of our museum technicians is joining him.
  • Two students are scheduled to defend their masters this spring: Andrew Ernst and Trish Mullins, and another student, Steve Turner, may also wrap up this year.
  • Katja Seltmann left us earlier this month and now is helping to coordinate one of the first TCN projects, Plants, Herbivores and Parasitoids: A Model System for the Study of Tri-Trophic Associations, at the American Museum of Natural History.
  • Two of us are moving to Penn State in July: István Mikó and me, Andy Deans. I will serve as the new director of the Frost Entomological Museum. More on this later, as it’s obviously big change for the Insect Museum.

It’ll be an exciting year, nonetheless, as we are ready to begin our contribution to the tritrophic interactions TCN mentioned above. That means digitize, digitize, digitize. And we’re on track to finish the drawer-scanning component of our prior BRC grant. We have almost 2,000 drawers uploaded to GigaPan! Scarabs and buprestids are coming up soon, so there will be some real eye candy. With all of this in mind, here are our 2012 resolutions:

  • Update the bee classification we use to curate specimens. Seems like an obvious task for us, given that we have a world class bee collection, the director is a hymenopterist, and we have a student (paid by the museum grant) who LOVES bees. We’ll move Anthophoridae and Meliponidae to their respective places (under Apidae) and do some substantial relabeling and reorganizing. It’s also relevant to our NSF BRC grant, which runs out in August.
  • Finish GigaPanning the collection. We have maybe 600 or so drawers left to image, and it’s taking awhile because we’re also using this necessary handling as an excuse to inject some expansion space into the collection. The remaining drawers are challenging, but we have the time and experience now to polish them off.
  • Maintain our efforts to monitor humidity, pest strips, and ethanol levels in the collection. Seems like this shouldn’t be a resolution, but I find it useful to place it here as a metric to use in our year-end self-evaluation.
  • Stay communicative. With the North Carolina Insect of the Week likely moving to a more erratic schedule we need to make sure we publish other news and observations to this blog and to Twitter. Maybe that sounds silly, but it’s fun to share our latest discoveries and other activities – keeps everyone aware and on their toes! The weekly insect morphology post should help with that.
  • Organize a smooth transition. With most of the Deans lab leaving, it’s important that we get organized about equipment, funding (especially the TCN project), and, perhaps most importantly, our digital resources (how the database is set up, how to access the museum website, etc. – it’s a bit of a digital hodgepodge right now, involving multiple servers). Assuming a new director will be joining the Museum in the not-too-distant future we want to make sure that person can make a seamless transition.

“Morphology is EVERYTHING”

This semester István Mikó and I are offering 1-credit graduate seminar in insect morphology. Why this topic? Well, (1) it’s been the primary focus of our lab research for the last 3-4 years, so we’re primed for it right now, but (2) most institutions have dropped their insect morphology courses, including NCSU (sigh) and Cornell, which had the famous Eickwort course (rightfully celebrated on Roberto Keller’s old blog, though the links to the course are now broken). A third (3) reason is that there have been some rather high profile failures of insect morphology recently, one of which you can about next week on the pages of PLoS ONE. As one of our guest students declared in today’s class – “morphology is everything”. We couldn’t agree more, and that’s why students should remain engaged when it comes to insect structure and function.

Anyway, we’ve organized the class in such a way that each student gives a mini-lecture one week (e.g. on cuticle or male genitalia) and then moderates a discussion of that topic the following week. The discussion is driven by the other students, who serve, as morphology pundits, carefully combing the literature for cool, recent papers relevant to that topic, and telling us what’s hawt about insect morphology. We’re using Mendeley (here’s our Insect Morphology Mendeley group) to keep track of the papers we read, and we’d love to have outsiders join us in the conversation. We’ve also assigned a scribe to each topic, and his/her job is to synthesize the discussion. We’ll be posting these summaries to the blog. It’s gonna be awesome!

resilin
Ensign wasp wing (Evaniidae: Afrevania sp.), photographed using Laser Confocal Microscopy. Note the blue regions of the wing, which represent high concentrations of resilin, an elastic protein that served as part of the first mini-lecture. Why would a wing like this have bands of resilin in those areas? You’ll find out soon!

2011 resolutions – how did we do?

Happy (quite belated) new year! December 31 came and went, as did the NSF DEB pre-proposal deadline (January 9!). We’ve been slammed with personnel changes, courses, meetings, manuscripts, and proposals these last few months, but we definitely want to make time to revisit our resolutions from last year, acknowledge our accomplishments in 2011, and then make a few resolutions for 2012. First, how did we do with respect to our 2011 goals?

  1. Finish profiling the collection – We’d profiled our pinned specimens in 2010 and aspired in 2011 to establish protocols for profiling our ethanol-preserved and slide-mounted collections – and then, of course, to actually profile these collections. So, how did we do? Our newest team member, Heather Campbell-Melvin, did a stellar job of evaluating our wet collection, a summary of which was presented at ECN last November. Watch this blog for a thorough account of our metrics. As for the slides … we haven’t touched them yet, primarily due to resource constraints. It’s the collection of least concern for us, based on our anecdotal profiling, so I am comfortable putting it off until 2012. Overall I’m going to declare this resolution a success.
  2. Monitor humidity and pest traps twice a month and publish results to the Web – After a quick rethinking of our workflow we chose to monitor the pests only once a month. Other than that change we did indeed manage to establish a rhythm and maintain it throughout the year. Our results are available on the calendar. This resolution was a success, and we’ll carry it into to 2012.
  3. Thoroughly inventory, label, and track Museum equipment and supplies – We have quite a supply of insect collecting gear, bought from a variety of sources. Some of this gear needs to be available for other parties within the department, including gung-ho students and instructors for Entomology classes. The rest of the gear is dedicated to Insect Museum missions. In 2011 we wanted to get organized about this equipment (a spreadsheet inventory) and track our loans of this gear. We did manage accomplish these goals, and I’d call this a success.
  4. Database Aphididae – Substantial progress was made towards this goal, mainly because we had world aphid experts visit us for an epic slide-scanning event (Bob Foottit and Eric Maw, from the CNC). More on this later, but our aphid slides have been scanned and are in the process of being processed. Huge success here, though we couldn’t have done it without help from our Canadian friends!
  5. Portage data to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility – As I said last year, we’ve been close for a long time to getting this done. We’re basically ready, in that our database has been configured to export data in the right format, but we’re not sharing yet. Too many distractions late in 2011. So, I have to declare this resolution a failure, though it probably (hopefully) won’t be a failure for very long.
  6. Offer another 52 North Carolina Insects of the Week – Astounding success! These posts are my favorite, as they force me to look at specimens and dive into the literature to learn about insects I don’t usually get exposed to. Our 104th will be this Friday, which marks exactly two years’ worth of North Carolina insects. I expect the posts to continue after that but to be much more erratic, as we shift gears and blog about other topics (more soon).

Up next: accolades, big changes, and resolutions for 2012.