![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||
a Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St, Miami, FL 33199, USA b Laboratory of Malaria and Vector Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-8132, USA c Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA d Centro de Investigaciones Sobre Enfermedades Infecciosas, INSP, Cuernavaca, Morelos 62100, México e INRA & Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis, Centre INRA de Sophia Antipolis, 06903 Sophia Antipolis, France *Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 305 348 6632; fax: +1 305 348 1986. E-mail address: noriegaf/at/fiu.edu (F.G. Noriega) The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Insect Biochem Mol Biol. See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.Abstract The biosynthesis of insect juvenile hormone (JH) and its neuroendocrine control are attractive targets for chemical control of insect pests and vectors of disease. To facilitate the molecular study of JH biosynthesis, we analyzed ESTs from the glands producing JH, the corpora allata (CA) in the cockroach Diploptera punctata, an insect long used as a physiological model species and compared them with ESTs from the CA of the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and Anopheles albimanus. The predicted genes were analyzed according to their probable functions with the Gene Ontology classification, and compared to Drosophila and Anopheles gambiae genes. A large number of reciprocal matches in the cDNA libraries of cockroach and mosquito CA were found. These matches defined known and suspected enzymes of the JH biosynthetic pathway, but also several proteins associated with signal transduction that might play a role in the modulation of JH synthesis by neuropeptides. The identification in both cockroach and mosquito CA of homologs of the small ligand binding proteins from insects, Takeout/JH binding protein and retinol-binding protein highlights a hitherto unsuspected complexity of metabolite trafficking, perhaps JH precursor trafficking, in these endocrine glands. Furthermore, many reciprocal matches for genes of unknown function may provide a fertile ground for an in-depth study of allatal-specific cell physiology. Keywords: Juvenile hormone (JH), Corpora allata (CA) 1. Introduction The growth, development, metamorphosis and reproduction of insects are under control of juvenile hormones (JHs) and ecdysteroids, or molting hormones, secreted by specific endocrine glands, the corpora allata (CA) and prothoracic glands (Gilbert et al., 2000; Stay, 2000). The receptors for these two major groups of insect hormones have each become targets for non-neurotoxic, insect-selective pesticides. The development of these “biorational” insecticides, such as methoprene and tebufenozide, was based on classical bioassays measuring the agonist activity of these hormones (Dhadialla et al., 2005). It is likely that new classes of insecticides acting as inhibitors of insect hormone biosynthesis will emerge as well, with a biological effect based on hormone deficit rather than hormone excess. However, little is known on the molecular aspects of hormone biosynthesis and regulation, so that high-throughput screens of such endocrine targets cannot be deployed. Recently, several genes coding for enzymes of the ecdysteroid biosynthetic pathway in prothoracic glands have been identified in Drosophila melanogaster through the study of Halloween mutants, and in Bombyx mori (Warren et al., 2002, 2004; Niwa et al., 2004). Fewer molecular tools are available for the analysis of JH biosynthesis even though the early steps of JH biosynthesis follow the mevalonate pathway from acetyl-CoA to farnesyl pyrophosphate (Bellé s et al., 2005). The cockroach, Diploptera punctata, has been extensively used as a model species for the study of JH biosynthesis and its regulation, because of its favorable life history traits (viviparity ensuring well-timed cycles of JH synthesis in the adult female) and because of its high levels of hormone production (Stay, 2000). It is important to extend and validate the knowledge obtained in this model species to species of greater biomedical relevance, such as mosquitoes. In order to facilitate the study of mosquito endocrinology, it was felt that a transfer of molecular tools specifically associated with the endocrine function and regulation of the CA from the model species to mosquitoes would be desirable. In the absence of a cockroach genome project, we chose a comparative EST approach. We present here the analysis of ESTs from the CA of D. punctata compared to a similar effort from Aedes aegypti and Anopheles albimanus. Reciprocal matches between the cockroach and the mosquito ESTs, as well as reference to the Anopheles gambiae and Drosophila genomes in particular allowed us to assign probable function to the majority of genes coding for enzymes of the JH biosynthetic pathway. This has already been validated by the functional identification of three cockroach ESTs as representing methyl farnesoate epoxidase, the last enzyme in JH biosynthesis (Helvig et al., 2004). In addition, we identified a number of gene products coding for potential elements of the signaling pathways in the CA. Our study provides a basis for the systematic and comprehensive analysis of molecules that may play an active role in the function and regulation of this endocrine gland. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Insects D. punctata were reared as previously described (Unnithan and Feyereisen, 1995). A. aegypti and white-striped pupal phenotype of An. albimanus were obtained from the insectary of the Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública (INSP, Cuernavaca, Mexico). Adult mosquitoes were reared under a photoperiod cycle of 12 h light:12 h dark, 27–28 °C and 70–80% relative humidity, and were fed ad libitum with 5% sugar. All mosquitoes used in this study were two- and three-day-old mated females. 2.2. Corpora allata ESTs CA+corpora cardiaca (CC) from A. aegypti (80 pairs) and An. albimanus (40 pairs) were dissected and rinsed in PBS and stored in 50 μl of RNAlater (Ambion). Mosquito mRNA was isolated using the Micro-FastTrack mRNA isolation kit (Invitrogen, San Diego, CA, USA). The PCR-based cDNA library was made following the instructions for the SMART cDNA library construction kit (Clontech, Palo Alto, CA, USA) exactly as described (Francischetti et al., 2002). Samples were prepared and sequenced on a CEQ 2000 DNA sequencing instrument (Beckman Coulter Inc.) (10). ESTs from the CA of adult mated female D. punctata aged 3–5 days were obtained as described (Helvig et al., 2004). 2.3. Bioinformatic tools ESTs were trimmed of primer and vector sequences, assembled, and compared to other databases (such as GO, PFAM, KOG, SMART, Drosophila melanogaster PROT, An. gambiae PROT, etc.), as described before (Valenzuela et al., 2003). The BLAST tool (Altschul et al., 1990) and CAP3 assembler were used (Huang and Madan, 1999). 2.4. Searches for known sequence similarities and known protein domains of the cDNA sequences To obtain information on the possible role of the cDNA sequences, the assembled FASTA file was blasted against the GenBank nonredundant protein database (NR) from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) using the standalone BlastX (Altschul et al., 1990). Databases were organized in spreadsheets as shown in AnoXcel (Ribeiro et al., 2004) and are available from the authors upon request. 2.5. Organization of an A. aegypti cDNA database 144,672 ESTs were downloaded from the TIGR site http://www.tigr.org/tigr-scripts/tgi/cat_download.pl?db=aaest. These were clusterized in 19,282 contigs and singletons as indicated above, and organized in a spreadsheet format similar to AnoXcel (Ribeiro et al., 2004). This assembled database of ~19,000 contigs and singletons were compared to the assembled EST database from Aedes CA to obtain full-length or near-full-length putative transcripts of interest. The database can be accessed from AnoBase at http://www.anobase.org/AnoBase/Genes/AegyXcel.html. 3. Results 3.1. Corpora allata ESTs The 5′ end of randomly selected cDNA clones was sequenced to establish the EST libraries. Following clusterization and assembly, the resulting contigs (consensus sequence resulting from more than one sequence) or singletons (sequences not containing enough similarity to other sequences in the database to be grouped into a cluster of related sequences) were analyzed by BLAST against the NR and other databases. For the D. punctata ESTs, 778 high-quality sequences were retained for analysis from an initial set of 1152 clones, and 478 independent clusters of contigs and singletons were organized. The most abundant ESTs coded for the mitochondrially encoded NADH dehydrogenase (159 ESTs) and cytochrome c oxidase (28 ESTs). For the A. aegypti ESTs, 1491 sequences were organized in 821 independent contigs and singletons. The most abundant ESTs were 60 S ribosomal protein (185 EST) and 40 S ribosomal protein (99 EST). Cytochrome c oxidase (61 EST) and NADH dehydrogenase (31 EST) were also very abundant. For An. albimanus ESTs, 356 sequences were organized in 260 contigs and singletons. The most abundant ESTs were an 18K mitochondrial protein (30 EST) and cytochrome c oxidase (24 EST). The 60 S ribosomal protein (14 EST) and 40 S ribosomal protein (13 EST) were also very abundant. Because in Diptera the tissue that comprises the CA cells also encompasses the CC cells, the major neurosecretory tissue of insects, it followed that genes encoding neurohormone precursors would be represented in the EST collection, and indeed we found the adipokinetic hormone (AKH) preprohormone in A. aegypti (18 ESTs) and in An. albimanus (10 ESTs) and the cardioacceleratory peptide (CCAP) preprohormone in A. aegypti (1 EST). Annotation of the contigs by Gene Ontology (Fig. 1A
3.2. ESTs that represent enzymes of the JH biosynthetic pathway Fig. 2
ESTs potentially representing CA signal transduction pathways. The CA are under humoral and nervous control and although some neuropeptide effectors have been identified, little is known on their mode of action. A homolog of the Drosophila Nmda1 gene coding for an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAr) associated protein was found in the D. punctata EST collection. It has been suggested that NMDAr has a role in regulating JH synthesis (Chiang et al., 2002a). Additional examples of ESTs representing elements of signal transduction pathways were an AMP-activated protein kinase α2 (AMPK) homolog and a GTP-binding protein of the Rho subfamily in the D. punctata library. A presenilin homolog was found in the three CA libraries, and a calmodulin EST was found in A. aegypti and An. albimanus. 3.3. Small ligand binding protein homologs ESTs were found in both D. punctata and A. aegypti for a protein of the takeout family. The D. punctata CA takeout-like EST was fully sequenced. It encodes a protein of 250 aa most closely related to the Drosophila takeout paralog CG13618. RT-PCR indicates that this transcript is expressed in the CA, but not in the brain or fat body. The encoded protein has the two pairs of cysteine residues necessary for the JH binding protein (JHBP) function of its lepidopteran homologs (Wojtasek and Prestwich, 1995) (Fig. 3
4. Discussion In an attempt to reveal the complexity of the insect CA transcriptome, several approaches can be considered. Differential display of mRNA can be useful when the tissues can be cleanly dissected. In the silkworm, mRNA differential display has been used to identify the OMT which is the last step of JH biosynthesis in lepidoptera (Shinoda and Itoyama, 2003). DNA microarray analysis is another potential tool. The transcriptome analysis using whole-genome microarrays gives a complete overview of those genes that are expressed significantly in certain tissues, when these tissues can be experimentally compared to “whole organism” transcriptome signatures. Such an approach has been elegantly described for the Malpighian tubules of Drosophila (Wang et al., 2004). Whole-genome arrays are not yet available for other insects, and their use with Drosophila ring glands which comprise both CA and prothoracic gland cells has not been attempted to our knowledge. In comparison, EST analysis is not dependent on prior knowledge of the whole genome, but relies on identification of the transcripts by homology. A careful analysis of ESTs from various tissues of the silkworm (Mita et al., 2003) indicates that about one-third or less of the ESTs found were specific for each tissue-derived library. In contrast, the silkworm prothoracic gland library yielded 49% library-specific ESTs, but a detailed description and analysis is not available. In this study, an EST approach designed to identify a large number of cDNAs in the CA of a cockroach and two mosquito species has been employed. Highly expressed genes are likely to be represented in EST collections, but high expression is a criterion different from selective expression. We have identified highly expressed genes typical of metabolically active tissues (e.g. high metabolic rate seen with many mitochondrial ESTs), as well as CA-selective and specific genes. The ultrastructure of the D. punctata CA shows dramatic changes in the mitochondria, related to high levels of activity (Johnson et al., 1985). Identification of the enzymes involved in the early steps of JH biosynthesis has taken advantage of the conservation of the mevalonate pathway between vertebrates and insects (Bellé s et al., 2005), but this option was not available for the later, JH-specific steps. Regulatory pathways controlling JH biosynthesis are more difficult to decipher with classical homology inferences. The comparison of cockroach and mosquito ESTs was felt to be a useful tool to discriminate such CA-selective transcripts. Indeed, the CA of mosquitoes are minute (30–40 μm) and closely associated within other cell types; we dissected the CA–CC complex attached to a small piece of aorta (see Fig. 1 of Li et al., 2003). It is therefore more difficult to study the physiological control of JH biosynthesis in mosquitoes than in the model species D. punctata. In this species, the CA (CA cells plus neurosecretory and neuromodulatory terminals) are somewhat easier to dissect clean of contaminating tissues, the glands are larger. Most importantly, they produce far more JH than any other insect species studied to date, a thousand fold more than mosquito CA, heroic amounts that can only be compared to the prodigious amounts of JH produced by the CA of adult male Saturniidae, especially Cecropia. It is likely that the enzyme machinery is present in higher amounts, and we could expect a relatively high abundance of the most representative mRNAs. Indeed several ESTs were found for mevalonate kinase, and for the methyl farnesoate epoxidase, CYP15A1. A large number of contigs (70) with predicted Gene Ontology function had a reciprocal match in the cockroach and A. aegypti CA collections of ESTs. Interestingly, an additional 19 contigs of unknown function also had a reciprocal match, suggesting that a significant proportion of the CA transcriptome has so far completely eluded any functional understanding. 4.1. Enzymes of JH biosynthesis Although ESTs with very high similarity to farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FPPS, EC 2.5.1.10) were found, we did not find a putative geranyl diphosphate synthase (GPPS, EC 2.5.1.11), suggesting that our prenyl transferase is a bifunctional enzyme, sequentially adding IPP to DMAPP and then to geranyl diphosphate. A separate GPPS is found in plants, but also in bark beetles (Keeling et al., 2004). The genomes of Diptera, Drosophila and An. gambiae carry just one prenyl transferase. ESTs for HMG-CoA reductase were not identified in our survey, but the transcript was found by PCR in the A. aegypti cDNA library. The low abundance of this transcript may be physiologically relevant as a control mechanism, and it was shown in D. punctata CA that the half-life of the enzyme in active glands is longer than in inactive glands (Feyereisen and Farnsworth, 1987b). The OMT case is of particular interest: the mosquito ESTs yielded representatives of both the silkworm OMT, and of a homolog of the putative crustacean OMT. The silkworm enzyme produced in Escherichia coli clearly produced methyl farnesoate from farnesoic acid and JHs from JH acids (Shinoda and Itoyama, 2003). In contrast, the heterologously expressed crustacean cDNA has only traces of OMT activity, and moreover, does not contain a characteristic AdoMet binding site (Gunawardene et al., 2002). Yet esterification of the farnesoic acid carboxylic group is clearly dependent in a stoichiometric manner on AdoMet (Feyereisen et al., 1981). The exact function of the “crustacean OMT” thus remains to be discovered. An EST with sequence homology to the “crustacean OMT” is also found in Manduca sexta antennae (Robertson et al., 1999), suggesting that the function is not specifically related to JH biosynthesis. ESTs for glutathione S-transferases and for Cu–Zn superoxide dismutases were found in D. punctata as well as in the mosquito, and may serve to protect the cell from oxidative stress related with fatty acid metabolism for acetyl-CoA generation and with CYP15 functioning. DNA microarray analysis of genes downregulated by dietary cholesterol in mice (Soccio et al., 2002) revealed that only a subset of the isoprenoid pathway enzymes were affected significantly at the transcriptional level, namely HMG-CoA synthase, IPP isomerase and the prenyl transferase FPPS, of which we now have molecular probes. Similarly, DNA microarray analysis showed that mevalonate kinase is the enzyme most affected by sterol regulatory element binding proteins (Horton et al., 2003). 4.2. Regulation of JH biosynthesis Allatostatins that reversibly inhibit JH synthesis in D. punctata have been shown to affect a very early step of the biosynthetic pathway, specifically the export of citrate from the mitochondria and/or its cytosolic conversion to acetyl-CoA which then enters the classical terpenoid pathway (Sutherland and Feyereisen, 1996). The tricarboxylate carrier has now been identified as an EST. Receptors for peptides of the allatostatin family from Drosophila, Periplaneta americana and B. mori have been identified functionally (Auerswald et al., 2001; Secher et al., 2001). These GPCR receptors are closely related to members of the somatostatin/galanin opioid receptor family. The YXFGL-amides (“A-family” allatostatins) thus appear to be acting through a G-protein-dependent mechanism but it is not known whether this mode of action applies equally to the allatal and extra-allatal effects of these peptides, because the expression of these receptors in insect CA has not yet been demonstrated. Moreover, no such receptor-related EST has been found in this study. However, ESTs for homologs of SNF1A, a GPCR kinase, and of Rho1, a Ras-type GTPase have been found. Activation of JH synthesis appears to involve ionotropic glutamate receptors such as NMDArs and kainate (or quisqualate) sensitive receptors through changes in Ca2+ levels (Chiang et al., 2002b). The Drosophila NMDAR1 and 2 genes are expressed in the CA portion of the ring gland, and a partial cDNA for a putative NMDAr was obtained by RT-PCR in the CA of D. punctata (Chiang et al., 2002a). Upon closer analysis, that sequence appears to represent a bacterial ABC transporter (tblastx E value: 1e−25) rather than a metabotropic receptor (blastx E value: 0.80) and may thus be a contaminant. Nonetheless, our finding of an EST for an NMDAr associated protein suggests that this transduction pathway is indeed present in D. punctata CA. The role of calcium in regulating CA activity is well documented (Rachinsky and Tobe, 1996), and its importance is underscored by the identification of a calmodulin EST as well as by ESTs for homologs of presenilin in both cockroach and mosquito. 4.3. Takeout/JHBP homolog and retinol-binding protein homolog The discovery of these ESTs in both cockroach and mosquito CA was quite unexpected. Takeout is a circadian clock-regulated output gene and has been proposed as a direct molecular link between the circadian clock and the feeding/starvation response in Drosophila (Sarov-Blat et al., 2000). There are 20 genes of the takeout family in the fruit fly (Dauwalder et al., 2002) and proteins of this family are related to hemolymph JHBPs of Lepidoptera and to the JP29 protein initially thought to represent a JH receptor in M. sexta (Palli et al., 1994). It has been proposed that Takeout participates in a circadian output pathway that conveys temporal and food status information to feeding-relevant metabolism and activities (Sarov-Blat et al., 2000). Transcription initiation of the takeout homolog moling in M. sexta requires both nutrient intake and decline in JH (Du et al., 2003). One possibility is that the takeout homologs expressed in the CA are also involved in feeding-related signals which are known to influence JH biosynthesis (Noriega, 2004). It is interesting that we have found a cDNA encoding for an AMPK α2 subunit; this is a catalytic subunit of the AMPK, an important energy-sensing enzyme that monitors the cellular energy status. On the other hand, the homology to JHBP and the potential role of takeout homologs as small molecule binding proteins or carriers in antennae (Robertson et al., 1999; Bohbot and Vogt, 2005), and exocrine glands (Hojo et al., 2005), suggest that the CA proteins act as intracellular JH or JH precursor carrier proteins. This intriguing possibility calls for a new look at metabolite trafficking in these endocrine glands. The homolog of Papilio xuthus retinol-binding protein found in both insect CA libraries is also of interest in this regard, because this sequence appears to be insect-specific, with little homology to other proteins, and a known ligand of striking similarity with the JHs. The A. aegypti EST has close homologs in the An. gambiae genome (e.g. XP3138238, see Fig. 4 The ESTs identified from CA libraries of two widely divergent insects, cockroaches and mosquitoes thus revealed the expected, enzymes of JH biosynthesis, the unexpected, small ligand binding proteins, and the unknown, reciprocal matches of unknown predicted function of which some at least have a high likelihood to have CA-specific functions. Our work opens the way for an in-depth study of allatal-specific cell physiology with specific molecular tools. Acknowledgments This work was supported by NIH grants AI 45545 to FGN and DK34549 to RF. This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health. Footnotes Data deposition: ESTs are deposited in GenBank under the accession numbers DV017592-DV018447 (Diploptera punctata) DR746432-DR747949 (Aedes aegypti) and DR747950-DR748310 (Anopheles albimanus).References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2000 Aug-Sep; 30(8-9):617-44.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2000]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2000 Aug-Sep; 30(8-9):653-62.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Aug 20; 99(17):11043-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004 Sep; 34(9):991-1010.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2004 Aug 20; 279(34):35942-9.
[J Biol Chem. 2004]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2000 Aug-Sep; 30(8-9):653-62.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 23; 101(12):4024-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]J Exp Biol. 2002 Aug; 205(Pt 16):2429-51.
[J Exp Biol. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 23; 101(12):4024-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2003 Jul; 33(7):717-32.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2003]J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5; 215(3):403-10.
[J Mol Biol. 1990]Genome Res. 1999 Sep; 9(9):868-77.
[Genome Res. 1999]J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5; 215(3):403-10.
[J Mol Biol. 1990]Insect Mol Biol. 2004 Oct; 13(5):449-57.
[Insect Mol Biol. 2004]Insect Mol Biol. 2004 Oct; 13(5):449-57.
[Insect Mol Biol. 2004]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2003 Dec; 33(12):1307-15.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2003]Annu Rev Entomol. 2005; 50():181-99.
[Annu Rev Entomol. 2005]J Lipid Res. 1983 Dec; 24(12):1586-94.
[J Lipid Res. 1983]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2001 Feb; 31(2):171-8.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2001]J Insect Physiol. 1973 Jan; 19(1):235-41.
[J Insect Physiol. 1973]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Oct 14; 100(21):11986-91.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Eur J Biochem. 2002 Jul; 269(14):3587-95.
[Eur J Biochem. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jan 8; 99(1):37-42.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Biochemistry. 1995 Apr 18; 34(15):5234-41.
[Biochemistry. 1995]Eur J Biochem. 2003 Jun; 270(11):2436-45.
[Eur J Biochem. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Oct 14; 100(21):11986-91.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Genome Biol. 2004; 5(9):R69.
[Genome Biol. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 25; 100(24):14121-6.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Cell Tissue Res. 1985; 239(2):317-27.
[Cell Tissue Res. 1985]Annu Rev Entomol. 2005; 50():181-99.
[Annu Rev Entomol. 2005]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2003 Dec; 33(12):1307-15.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2003]Naturwissenschaften. 2004 Jul; 91(7):324-8.
[Naturwissenschaften. 2004]Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1987 Oct; 53(3):227-38.
[Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1987]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Oct 14; 100(21):11986-91.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Eur J Biochem. 2002 Jul; 269(14):3587-95.
[Eur J Biochem. 2002]Eur J Biochem. 1981 Aug; 118(2):231-8.
[Eur J Biochem. 1981]Insect Mol Biol. 1999 Nov; 8(4):501-18.
[Insect Mol Biol. 1999]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 May 14; 99(10):6943-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Oct 14; 100(21):12027-32.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1996 Jul 1; 120(2):115-23.
[Mol Cell Endocrinol. 1996]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001 Apr 13; 282(4):904-9.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2001]J Biol Chem. 2001 Dec 14; 276(50):47052-60.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2002 Jun; 32(6):669-78.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jan 8; 99(1):37-42.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]Cell. 2000 Jun 9; 101(6):647-56.
[Cell. 2000]Genes Dev. 2002 Nov 15; 16(22):2879-92.
[Genes Dev. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Jun 21; 91(13):6191-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2003 Aug; 33(8):803-14.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2003]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004 Jul; 34(7):687-93.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2004]Insect Mol Biol. 1999 Nov; 8(4):501-18.
[Insect Mol Biol. 1999]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Sep; 35(9):961-79.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005]Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Apr; 35(4):347-54.
[Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005]