We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact us so we can address the problem.
Defining behavioral and molecular differences between summer and migratory monarch butterflies
- Haisun Zhu†1,
- Robert J Gegear†1,
- Amy Casselman1,
- Sriramana Kanginakudru1 and
- Steven M Reppert1Email author
© Zhu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
- Received: 15 December 2008
- Accepted: 31 March 2009
- Published: 31 March 2009
In the fall, Eastern North American monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) undergo a magnificent long-range migration. In contrast to spring and summer butterflies, fall migrants are juvenile hormone deficient, which leads to reproductive arrest and increased longevity. Migrants also use a time-compensated sun compass to help them navigate in the south/southwesterly direction en route for Mexico. Central issues in this area are defining the relationship between juvenile hormone status and oriented flight, critical features that differentiate summer monarchs from fall migrants, and identifying molecular correlates of behavioral state.
Here we show that increasing juvenile hormone activity to induce summer-like reproductive development in fall migrants does not alter directional flight behavior or its time-compensated orientation, as monitored in a flight simulator. Reproductive summer butterflies, in contrast, uniformly fail to exhibit directional, oriented flight. To define molecular correlates of behavioral state, we used microarray analysis of 9417 unique cDNA sequences. Gene expression profiles reveal a suite of 40 genes whose differential expression in brain correlates with oriented flight behavior in individual migrants, independent of juvenile hormone activity, thereby molecularly separating fall migrants from summer butterflies. Intriguing genes that are differentially regulated include the clock gene vrille and the locomotion-relevant tyramine beta hydroxylase gene. In addition, several differentially regulated genes (37.5% of total) are not annotated. We also identified 23 juvenile hormone-dependent genes in brain, which separate reproductive from non-reproductive monarchs; genes involved in longevity, fatty acid metabolism, and innate immunity are upregulated in non-reproductive (juvenile-hormone deficient) migrants.
The results link key behavioral traits with gene expression profiles in brain that differentiate migratory from summer butterflies and thus show that seasonal changes in genomic function help define the migratory state.
- Juvenile Hormone
- Directional Flight
- Flight Simulator
- Flight Behavior
Eastern North American monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) undergo a spectacular fall migration during which they travel distances up to ~4000 km to reach their overwintering grounds in central Mexico . In contrast to spring and summer butterflies, fall migrants are juvenile hormone (JH) deficient, which leads to reproductive arrest (diapause), increased longevity, and increased abdominal fat stores [2, 3]. Fall migrants also use a time-compensated sun compass to help them navigate in the south/southwesterly direction [4–6]. Reproductive quiescence persists at the overwintering areas in Mexico until spring, when the butterflies break diapause, become reproductively competent, mate, and fly northward to lay fertilized eggs on newly emerged milkweed plants in the southern United States [7, 8].
The migrant offspring give rise to three to four successive generations of reproductively active butterflies that repopulate the northern range of their habitat. It is unclear whether the successive generations of spring and summer butterflies have oriented flight activity to the north and/or whether they are following the progressive northerly increase in milkweed abundance, while avoiding undue heat stress that would occur if they remained in the southern United States throughout the summer . The late-July/early-August generations of summer butterflies, some of whose offspring become fall migrants, appear to be the best example of butterflies that do not exhibit oriented flight behavior [9, 10]. However, the precise type of flight behavior that the summer monarchs actually manifest has not been rigorously examined. It is also unclear whether JH deficiency and the accompanying reproductive quiescence are required for ongoing time-compensated sun compass orientation in fall migrants.
We recently developed a brain expressed sequence tag (EST) resource for monarch butterflies that likely represents ~50% of genes in the monarch genome . Using high-density microarrays of the 9417 unique cDNA sequences in the EST resource, a blueprint of gene expression patterns can be compared and contrasted between different conditions that may help define the molecular substrates that characterize the summer and migratory states.
Here we show that increasing JH activity to induce summer-like reproductive development in fall migrants did not alter directional flight behavior or its time-compensated orientation, as monitored in a flight simulator. Summer butterflies, on the other hand, uniformly failed to exhibit directional, oriented flight. Microarray analysis revealed 40 JH-independent genes whose differential expression in brain correlated with directional flight behavior in fall migrants. Moreover, we have identified 23 JH-dependent genes in brain, which separate reproductive from non-reproductive butterflies. These data provide an unprecedented foray into the genomic regulation of migratory behaviors in monarch butterflies.
Increased juvenile hormone activity in migrants does not disrupt directed flight or time-compensated orientation
Because several aspects of migratory behavior are a consequence of continued JH deficiency, for example, reproductive quiescence and increased longevity [2, 3], we examined whether the oriented flight behavior characteristic of fall migrants also depends on persistent JH insufficiency. This was evaluated by increasing JH activity with the potent JH analog methoprene  and then monitoring the effect on reproductive state and time-compensated flight orientation. Preliminary studies showed that the topical treatment of migrants with 200 μg of methoprene on day 1 and day 3 consistently led to summer-like reproductive development in both sexes by day 14, while vehicle (control) applications of acetone did not (data not shown; see below).
Both methoprene- and vehicle-treatment groups were housed indoors in either a 12 hr light-12 hr dark (LD) cycle that was timed to coincide with the prevailing lighting conditions or a 6 hr-delayed LD cycle. These two lighting cycles, which differed in their timing relative to each other, were used to test whether flight orientation was time compensated, because altering the timing of the daily light-dark cycle should cause predictable changes in the direction the butterflies fly, if time compensation is operable. For example, the 6-hr delay in LD should cause a clockwise shift in orientation of 72° to 120°, relative to the non-shifted LD group, if flight direction is fully time compensated; the degree of the shift expected depends on how rapidly the sun's azimuth varies during the time of day the studies were performed, which was 12° to 20° per hour for the current studies.
Regardless of treatment (methoprene or vehicle), group analyses showed that the directional fall migrants manifested time-compensated flight orientation (Figure 2). Both treatment groups housed under prevailing LD conditions were oriented significantly in the south/southwesterly direction (Figure 2A); vehicle-treated migrants had an orientation vector (α) of 202.6° (n = 12, r = 0.714, p = 0.001) (Figure 2A, upper left, small blue circles), similar to what we have reported before for untreated migrants , and methoprene-treated migrants had an α of 173° (n = 10, r = 0.713, p = 0.004) (Figure 2A, upper right, small red circles). The mean flight orientation did not differ between vehicle- and methoprene-treated migrants (p = 0.18; Watson-Williams F-test) and the combined α was 189.2° (n = 22, r = 0.69, p < 0.00001) (Figure 2A, lower, merge).
Both treatment groups housed under the 6 hr-delayed LD cycle were oriented significantly in the west/northwesterly direction (Figure 2B); vehicle-treated migrants had an α of 276.9° (n = 11, r = 0.58, p = 0.021) (Figure 2B, small blue circles), and methoprene-treated migrants had an α of 291.6° (n = 15, r = 0.566, p = 0.006) (Figure 2B, small red circles). Again, the mean flight orientation did not differ between vehicle- and methoprene-treated migrants (p = 0.573; Watson-Williams F-test) and the combined α was 285.3° (n = 26, r = 0.567, p = 0.0001) (Figure 2B, merge).
These data show that individual fall migratory monarchs uniformly manifest directed flight and as a group show robust time-compensated sun compass orientation even when their reproductive systems are activated (at the morphological and behavioral levels) by JH analog treatment. Although JH deficiency may be involved in the induction of directional flight and proper sun compass orientation, it is not required for their maintenance.
Summer butterflies uniformly fail to show directed, oriented flight behavior
Although it has been reported that 'summer' monarchs do not exhibit oriented flight [9, 10], until now this has not been evaluated in a flight simulator in which both individual directionality and group orientation can be assessed (see below). We tested these parameters in wild-caught summer butterflies captured in western Massachusetts (latitude 42°59'N) between 20 July and 10 August 2008 and housed indoors in a light-dark cycle that was timed to coincide with the prevailing lighting conditions. These butterflies were reproductive, as most were found in mating pairs while held in screened cages outdoors prior to being flown in a flight simulator. Moreover, fall migrants typically are not found at this locale until after 1 September.
These data show that the majority of individual mid- to late-summer butterflies exhibit non-directional flight behavior. Although the numbers were small, the data also suggest that as a group those butterflies that were directional were not significantly oriented, as previously suggested [9, 10].
Gene expression profiles in brain correlate with oriented flight behavior in fall migrants
Our behavioral data in migrants suggest that the regulation of directed flight behavior in individuals and group orientation are separable from reproductive state (Figures 2 and 4). It consequently seemed possible that there might be a set of genes that regulates oriented flight behavior in migrants that is independent of the JH pathway. We therefore performed microarray analysis to determine whether there are differentially expressed genes between summer butterflies and fall migrants, irrespective of their reproductive status. These genes might provide insights into brain changes necessary to initiate and maintain oriented flight activity.
(glands weight, g)
(# of mature oocytes)
2 days LD cycle
Lights on: 4:38 AM
Lights off: 7:09 PM
2 days LD cycle
Lights on: 6:09 AM
Lights off: 4:54 PM
14 days LD cycle
Lights on: 6:00 AM
Lights off: 5:00 PM
Fall methoprene (M)
Fall vehicle (V)
We collected total brain RNA from 10 summer butterflies, 10 fall migrants, 10 migrants following methoprene treatment, and 10 migrants following vehicle (acetone) treatment. We checked the reproductive status of all animals to ensure they had the expected reproductive state (Table 1), which was similar to that found in our flight studies (Figure 4A); summer monarchs and methoprene-treated migrants had activated reproductive systems, while untreated and vehicle-treated migrants did not (Table 1). The brain RNAs were amplified and then used to probe a custom Nimblegen array that was designed to analyze the 9417 unique cDNA sequences established in our published brain EST library .
A. Orientation Genes
# of significant
# shared in each sex+
# shared by both sexes
Summer vs. Fall
Summer vs. Fall methoprene
Summer vs. Fall vehicle
Summer vs. Fall
Summer vs. Fall methoprene
Summer vs. Fall vehicle
B. JH-response Genes
# of significant
# shared in each sex†
# shared by both sexes
Summer vs. Fall
Fall methoprene vs. Fall vehicle
Summer vs. Fall
Fall methoprene vs. Fall vehicle
The two differentially regulated cDNAs that appeared to be most directly related to time-compensated orientation were tyramine beta hydroxylase, whose protein regulates octopamine biosynthesis, which is involved in motor behavior, and vrille, which encodes a circadian clock component (based on studies in Drosophila); both cDNAs were upregulated in summer butterflies. The protein VRILLE is an important negative regulator of Clock transcription, and CLOCK is a critical transcriptional regulator of the circadian clock mechanism of insects and mammals .
There were also several differentially regulated cDNAs, upregulated in summer butterflies, that were involved in more general cellular processes, which included steroid/cholesterol metabolism (Cytochrome P450 and HMG Coenzyme A synthase), lipid metabolism (CDP-diglyceride synthetase and CG31140-PB), electron transport (Cytochrome P450 and CG8032-PA), and intracellular signaling pathways (growl, capa receptor, and CG42450-PA).
The one annotated cDNA without assigned function can now be classified as being involved functionally in oriented flight behavior, along with the other 39 cDNAs. Interestingly, 15 cDNAs had no annotation with other databases. Their lack of identity based on available genomic and EST resources could mean that the non-annotated cDNAs contain incomplete sequence information for orthologous matches with other databases. A more exciting possibility is that the non-annotated cDNAs represent unknown genes whose functions are unique to the migratory state in monarch butterflies.
JH-regulated gene expression patterns in brain correlate with reproductive state
In addition to 'orientation' genes, we were also interested in evaluating the JH-response genes. These genes are likely involved in reproductive status and longevity. Since these genes are expected to be regulated by JH, the methoprene-treated fall butterflies should have expression profiles similar to those in the summer animals. Again, we performed sex-specific statistical analyses, and compared the summer and the fall groups, and the methoprene-treated and vehicle-treated migrants (Table 2B). We then screened for shared genes between the two groups for each sex.
Of the 23 JH-related cDNAs, 21 had matches with other databases, with 15 annotated with biological function (Figure 9B). Predictably, they included genes involved in longevity (rosy), fatty acid metabolism (CG6543-PB), and, interestingly, immune responses (hemolin, TGF beta-inducible nuclear protein 1, Gp150, and inhibitor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer), which were all upregulated in untreated and vehicle-treated migrants. There were also two genes involved in translation (ribosomal protein L35A and polyA-binding proteins) and one involved in calcium-dependent phospholipid binding (Annexin IX) that were upregulated in JH-deficient migrants. Genes that were upregulated in reproductive butterflies included those involved in steroid biosynthesis (Cytochrome P450-18a1), notch signaling (Enhancer of spilt mgamma), and calcium homeostasis (CG2165-PC).
The six cDNAs that were annotated but without assigned function can now be classified functionally as being involved in JH-related activities, along with the other 17 cDNAs. Two differentially regulated cDNAs lacked annotation based on available genomic and EST databases, which could mean that they contain incomplete sequence information for orthologous matches with other databases or that the non-annotated cDNAs represent unknown genes whose functions are unique to the migratory state in monarch butterflies.
Defining the migratory state
The thrust of this work was to more precisely define the behavioral and molecular differences between summer butterflies and fall migrants. As there are several generations of reproductively active spring and summer butterflies, we chose to focus on the mid- to late-summer butterflies whose offspring likely give rise to fall migrants. We contrast this generation with those in the spring and early summer, which are moving north/northwesterly to repopulate the upper ranges of their habitat in Eastern North America. Observations of those monarchs suggest that they may have oriented flight behavior , and these earlier generations need to be more rigorously evaluated in a flight simulator, as we have done in our studies with mid- to late-summer butterflies.
A significant aspect of our behavioral work with summer butterflies shows that their individual flight patterns are uniformly non-directional. A prior study using the disappearance bearing of released monarchs showed that summer butterflies collected at a similar time of year as ours (early August at latitude 38'9°N) were not significantly oriented . Only short flight paths can be assessed in the disappearance bearing studies, but the results are consistent with our longer flight recordings in a flight simulator. This non-directionality is an important behavioral trait that characterizes mid- to late-summer butterflies from the other generations that occur over the course of the year. These animals also provide the clearest behavioral difference with fall migrants, as fall migrants consistently exhibit directional flight, which is why we used them in our gene expression studies.
Another distinguishing feature between summer butterflies and fall migrants is reproductive state. Summer butterflies are reproductively competent, while fall migrants are JH deficient, which leads to reproductive diapause, with decreased weight of reproductive organs and quiescent reproductive activity [2, 3]. Reproductive diapause usually persists over the course of the migratory journey and for months at the overwintering sites . However, reproductive diapause can be readily manipulated in fall migrants; diapause can be broken by exposing migrants to elevated temperatures and increasing day length [10, 17]. It is unclear whether the entire repertoire of migratory behaviors (including reproductive diapause and directional flight behavior) are initiated by the same environmental cues, which may include decreasing day length, sun angle and temperature, and the age of the larval food source .
Our studies show clearly that directional flight activity and time-compensated sun compass orientation persist independent of reproductive state; oriented flight activity has also been shown in disappearance bearing studies of reproductively active migrants , but persistent time-compensation had not been shown previously. It is still possible that JH deficiency is involved in the induction of directed flight for sun compass orientation, but it is clear from our results that persistent JH deficiency is not required for maintenance. Moreover, increasing JH activity in migrants is unlikely to explain the reversed flight direction of migrants (in the northerly direction) as they leave the overwintering grounds in the spring, because the methoprene-induced increase in reproductive activity in fall migrants did not alter the normal south/southwesterly flight direction manifested when studied in LD (Figure 2A). It will be interesting to determine in future experiments whether JH antagonist treatment can convert summer butterflies to migrants.
Consistent with our findings of persistent migratory flight in reproductive migrants, ecological observations have suggested that a small number of migrating monarchs, who have broken reproductive diapause because of prolonged exposure to high environmental temperatures during their migration south, may give rise to a subsequent 'backup' generation of migrants, originating from the southern range late in the fall (See ). Indeed, a peak in monarch egg and larva abundance in Texas during September and early October supports this idea, because adult monarchs are not seen in the southern United States throughout most of the summer .
An exciting aspect of our work was the discovery of a suite of 40 genes whose differential expression in brain distinguishes individual summer butterflies from fall migrants, independent of reproductive status. Any single gene or combination of genes within the 40 could be essential for the initiation and/or maintenance of directional flight in migrants. The genes that were not annotated may be especially interesting targets for further studies, as we have shown their importance in predicting oriented flight. Although the fold changes in gene expression between non-oriented and oriented butterflies were small, they do not rule out larger differences in expression of individual genes in specific neural subpopulations that have been diluted by whole brain analysis  – a possibility that needs to be evaluated for each gene. We expect that with further study the number of differentially regulated genes will grow, as the sequencing and annotation of the entire monarch genome progresses.
Our data are the first to provide a link between alterations in gene expression profiles in brain and migratory state in any animal which undergoes long-distance migration. Moreover, our results also provide the first insights into gene expression patterns in brain that may underlie time-compensated sun compass orientation, a complex process involving brain integration of information about time and space.
Our gene expression profiles resemble those reported to be involved in behavioral plasticity in honey bees in which a small collection of genes, most of which did not show a greater than 2-fold change by microarray analysis, reliably predict behavioral state (nurses from foragers) in individual bees . Further evaluation of the 40 genes we have identified in monarchs will likely provide novel insights into their individual and/or collective importance for migration and the brain changes necessary to initiate and maintain oriented flight behavior.
Monarch butterflies were housed in the laboratory in glassine envelopes in Percival incubators with controlled temperature, humidity (70%), and lighting. The butterflies were fed 25% honey every other or every third day.
Animals were treated topically on their abdomens with either 200 μg of methoprene in 5 μl acetone or acetone alone on day 1 and day 3.
Evaluation of reproductive status
For males, the ejaculatory duct and tubular gland were weighed. For females, the presence of mature oocytes was recorded.
Butterflies were tethered as previously described , and flight behavior was monitored using a modified Mouritsen and Frost flight simulator as described . Butterflies were flown outdoors under sunny skies when the sun could be seen from their position in the flight barrel. Data were analyzed to determine the significance of orientation and the mean direction using circular statistics .
Microarray sample preparation
Over a 2-hour period bracketing (± 1 hr) the middle of the light period, individual monarchs were taken from their envelopes, and the heads were removed with scissors. The severed heads were immediately placed in 0.5× RNAlater (Ambion), and each brain was dissected, with the photoreceptor layer removed, and placed on dry ice; brains were stored at -80°C. RNA from individual brains was isolated using the Qiagen RNeasy Mini Kit with the optional on-column DNase treatment according to the manufacturer's instruction. Approximately 100 ng RNA from each brain sample was used to synthesize amplified cDNA using the Ovation Amplification System V2 (Nugen). Amplified cDNAs were purified using Qiagen PCR purification kit. All 40 samples were successfully amplified with yields between 10 and 15 μg of cDNA. As required by Nimblegen microarray service, 6 μg of amplified cDNA from each sample were converted into doublestrand cDNA using Klenow (NEB) reaction with random hexamer priming (Promega). Doublestrand cDNAs were purified again using Qiagen PCR purification kit before submitting to Nimblegen for labeling and hybridization.
Microarray design and analysis
A 4-plex Nimblegen custom monarch expression array was designed based on our previously published EST data to include all unique ESTs and contigs. In addition, 18 previously cloned monarch genes were included on the array. A total of 9417 unique sequences were incorporated into the array design. Each sequence was represented by seven non-overlapping oligos on the array. Nimblegen's service department carried out array design, synthesis, probe labeling and hybridization. They also performed data pre-processing including array scan, data extraction and normalization . Normalized values for each gene, which provide a measure of expression levels, were used in all data analyses. All normalized values and processed data are available at GEOdatabase http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE14041.
To determine if gene expression levels differed between butterflies in different behavioral states, we used a Student's t-test to compare normalized values for each gene between treatment groups (Table 2). We compared differences in gene expression levels at the conventional value of p < 0.05. Although the use of an unadjusted significance level may increase false positives due to multiple testing, the number should be minimal in our case, because results were drawn from comparisons of shared gene across multiple groups and not a single comparison (see Table 2). For those genes that showed a significant change in expression level, we labeled them as either 'upregulated' or 'downregulated' depending on the means for each group. For example, if the mean normalized value was higher in the summer group than the migrant group, then the gene was considered upregulated in summer butterflies. Statistical comparisons and gene cluster analyses were done using ArrayStar software. Animal cluster analyses were done using MultiExperiment Viewer http://www.tm4.org/mev.html. Gene annotation was done using the previously published ESTIMA monarch EST database http://titan.biotec.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/ESTWebsite/estima_start?seqSet=butterfly.
We thank Lauren Foley and Danielle Metterville for technical assistance; Carol Cullar and Fred Gagnon for supplying butterflies; and Adriana Briscoe and Christine Merlin for comments and discussions. Supported in part by NIH grant R01GM086794 and NSF grant IOB-0646060.
- Brower LP: Understanding and misunderstanding the migration of the monarch butterfly (Nymphalidae) in North America: 1857–1995. J Lepid Soc. 1995, 49: 304-385.Google Scholar
- Herman WS: Endocrine regulation of post eclosion enlargement of the male and female reproductive glands in monarch butterflies. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 1975, 26: 534-540. 10.1016/0016-6480(75)90176-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Herman WS, Tatar M: Juvenile hormone regulation of longevity in the migratory monarch butterfly. Proc Biol Soc. 2001, 268: 2509-2514. 10.1098/rspb.2001.1765.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Froy O, Gotter AL, Casselman AL, Reppert SM: Illuminating the circadian clock in monarch butterfly migration. Science. 2003, 300: 1303-1305. 10.1126/science.1084874.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mouritsen H, Frost BJ: Virtual migration in tethered flying monarch butterflies reveals their orientation mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002, 99: 10162-10166. 10.1073/pnas.152137299.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Perez SM, Taylor OR, Jander R: A sun compass in monarch butterflies. Nature. 1997, 387: 29-10.1038/387029a0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brower L: Monarch butterfly orientation: missing pieces of a magnificent puzzle. J Exp Biol. 1996, 199: 93-103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Herman WS, Brower LP, Calvert WH: Reproductive tract development in monarch butterflies overwintering in California USA and Mexico. J Lepid Soci. 1989, 43: 50-58.Google Scholar
- Kanz JE: The orientation of migrant and nonmigrant monarch butterflies danaus-plexippus. Psyche (Cambridge). 1977, 84: 120-141.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Perez SM, Taylor OR: Monarch butterflies' migratory behavior persists despite changes in environmental conditions. Monarch Butterfly Biology & Conservation. Edited by: Oberhauser KS, Solensky MJ. 2004, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 85-88.Google Scholar
- Zhu H, Casselman A, Reppert SM: Chasing migration genes: a brain expressed sequence tag resource for summer and migratory monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). PLoS ONE. 2008, 3: e1345-10.1371/journal.pone.0001345.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Robinson GE: Effects of a juvenile hormone analog on honey bee apis-mellifera-ligustica foraging behavior and alarm pheromone production. J Insect Physiol. 1985, 31: 277-282. 10.1016/0022-1910(85)90003-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stanewsky R: Genetic analysis of the circadian system in Drosophila melanogaster and mammals. J Neurobiol. 2003, 54: 111-147. 10.1002/neu.10164.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shinoda T, Itoyama K: Juvenile hormone acid methyltransferase: a key regulatory enzyme for insect metamorphosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003, 100: 11986-11991. 10.1073/pnas.2134232100.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Li S, Ouyang YC, Ostrowski E, Borst DW: Allatotropin regulation of juvenile hormone synthesis by the corpora allata from the lubber grasshopper, Romalea microptera. Peptides. 2005, 26: 63-72. 10.1016/j.peptides.2004.08.023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sarov-Blat L, So WV, Liu L, Rosbash M: The Drosophila takeout gene is a novel molecular link between circadian rhythms and feeding behavior. Cell. 2000, 101: 647-656. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80876-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barker JF, Herman WS: Effect of photoperiod and temperature on reproduction of the monarch butterfly danaus-plexippus. J Insect Physiol. 1976, 22: 1565-1568. 10.1016/0022-1910(76)90046-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Goehring L, Oberhauser KS: Effects of photoperiod, temperature, and host plant age on induction of reproductive diapause and development time in Danaus plexippus. Ecol Entomol. 2002, 27: 674-685. 10.1046/j.1365-2311.2002.00454.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Borland J, Johnson CC, Crumpton TW, Thomas M, Altizer SM, Oberhauser KS: Characteristics of fall migratory monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus, in Minnesota and Texas. Monarch Butterfly Biology & Conservation. Edited by: Oberhauser KS, Solensky MJ. 2004, Ithaca: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
- Prysby MD, Oberhauser KS: Temporal and geographic variation in monarch densities: citizen scientists document monarch population patterns. Monarch Butterfly Biology & Conservation. Edited by: Oberhauser KS, Solensky MJ. 2004, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 9-20.Google Scholar
- Whitfield CW, Cziko AM, Robinson GE: Gene expression profiles in the brain predict behavior in individual honey bees. Science. 2003, 302: 296-299. 10.1126/science.1086807.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reppert SM, Zhu H, White RH: Polarized light helps monarch butterflies navigate. Curr Biol. 2004, 14: 155-158. 10.1016/j.cub.2003.12.034.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Batschelet E: Circular statistics in biology. 1981, London, New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
- Nuwaysir EF, Huang W, Albert TJ, Singh J, Nuwaysir K, Pitas A, Richmond T, Gorski T, Berg JP, Ballin J, McCormick M, Norton J, Pollock T, Sumwalt T, Butcher L, Porter D, Molla M, Hall C, Blattner F, Sussman MR, Wallace RL, Cerrina F, Green RD: Gene expression analysis using oligonucleotide arrays produced by maskless photolithography. Genome Res. 2002, 12: 1749-1755. 10.1101/gr.362402.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.