BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2018 / Article
Special Issue

Drosophila Models of Human Disease

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 5697436 |

Cassandra Millet-Boureima, Jessica Porras Marroquin, Chiara Gamberi, "Modeling Renal Disease “On the Fly”", BioMed Research International, vol. 2018, Article ID 5697436, 13 pages, 2018.

Modeling Renal Disease “On the Fly”

Academic Editor: Daniela Grifoni
Received03 Feb 2018
Accepted17 Apr 2018
Published31 May 2018


Detoxification is a fundamental function for all living organisms that need to excrete catabolites and toxins to maintain homeostasis. Kidneys are major organs of detoxification that maintain water and electrolyte balance to preserve physiological functions of vertebrates. In insects, the renal function is carried out by Malpighian tubules and nephrocytes. Due to differences in their circulation, the renal systems of mammalians and insects differ in their functional modalities, yet carry out similar biochemical and physiological functions and share extensive genetic and molecular similarities. Evolutionary conservation can be leveraged to model specific aspects of the complex mammalian kidney function in the genetic powerhouse Drosophila melanogaster to study how genes interact in diseased states. Here, we compare the human and Drosophila renal systems and present selected fly disease models.

1. Introduction

Defective kidney function can lead to potentially lethal end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), for which therapeutic options are limited. ESRD and CKD may be remedied by dialysis and renal replacement therapy (renal transplant), which are both costly [1] and greatly affect the quality of life of both patients and their families. The complexity of the human kidney has posed a formidable challenge to experimental probing for many pathologies. In many cases disease progression is well described; however, the underlying mechanisms at the molecular and cellular levels are incompletely understood, which affects our capacity to design remedial therapeutics. Animal model research on kidney disease has traditionally used rodents for their mammalian-type kidney similar to the human one. However, rodent and human kidneys also share the same complexity, which challenges experimentation. Zebrafish, featuring a streamlined pronephros, has also been used to model renal disease, albeit less frequently, in part because of its adaptation to an aquatic environment. With an open circulatory system, the fly’s renal system is aglomerular and urine formation is based on active transport rather than selective readsorption [2]. However, Drosophila is a clear evolutionary intermediate towards the glomerular kidney, with recognizable cell types responsible for fulfilling the kidney’s main functions: detoxification, filtration, and endocytosis [3, 4]. The small body size and the fastest filtration rate known [5] allow flies to have separate compartments for renal function: the Malpighian Tubules (MTs), which are analogous to the renal tubules [6], and two clusters of nephrocytes within the body cavity, which are analogous to podocytes in the glomerular kidney. Because of extensive functional similarities, the fly has been successfully used to model aspects of mammalian renal function. We will compare the human and Drosophila renal systems and discuss the strategic use of fly modeling of human renal disease.

2. The Human Renal Filtration System

The human kidneys, found in the mid to lower back of the trunk on each side of the spine, are bean-shaped organs roughly the size of a person’s own fist. Composed of two main layers, the cortex and the medulla, they play a leading role in blood filtration, solute reabsorption, and metabolic waste excretion, which result in urine production. The kidney medulla contains so-called renal pyramids, conical regions collectively holding about one million functional units, which are called nephrons. The nephrons span both cortex and medulla, starting and ending in the former, with the latter containing variable lengths of the central portion of the tubule. Nephrons modify the filtered fluid and produce urine, which drains into collecting tubules (also called collecting ducts) that in turn fuse into larger ducts that empty into the minor calyx, the ureter and, eventually, the bladder.

Each nephron consists of a tubule closed at one end and enlarged into the cup-like Bowman’s capsule, which surrounds a tuft of capillaries called glomerulus. Together, the Bowman’s capsule and glomerulus are referred to as renal (or Malpighian) corpuscle. The renal corpuscle filters blood via specialized cells that respond to physiological cues. Glomerular capillaries are fenestrated, that is have pores which allow fluids and small molecules such as ions and sugars to leave the blood and, instead, retain cells and proteins exceeding pore size, complexes of carrier proteins and lipids, as well as calcium ions (Ca2+). Wrapped around the capillaries and with characteristic protrusions called foot processes which contact the capillary’s basement membrane are podocytes, specialized epithelial cells integral to the filtration barrier [68]. Adjacent foot processes are separated by slit diaphragms about 14 nm wide with 30–50 nm wide pores carrying out filtration [6] (Figure 1). Major components of the slit diaphragm include members of the nephrin protein superfamily and NEPH1, which are coexpressed and form the diaphragm via homotypical and heterotypical interactions [6]. Together, the basement membrane, slit diaphragm, and podocyte processes form a barrier between plasma and filtrate which is essential to glomerular function. Its disruption can lead to kidney disease [9]. Differences in pressure between the glomerulus and Bowman’s capsule determine the glomerular filtration rate (GFR, the amount of filtrate produced per minute), which is used to measure kidney function. Because ion and fluid balance depend on flow efficiency, glomerular filtration rate is subject to multiple regulatory mechanisms. The glomerular filtrate is first collected in the Bowman’s capsule and directed through the nephron, flowing through the proximal convoluted tubule and the descending and ascending branches of the Loop of Henle, rising through the distal convoluted tubule while being modified, and, finally, arriving to the collecting duct as urine (Figure 2).

2.1. Human Nephron Development

Mammalian nephrons form during the late embryonic and early postnatal stages and display limited cell turnover, resulting in low regeneration rate in the adult [10]. Interactions between two mesoderm-derived tissues, the ureteric bud (UB), and the adjacent metanephric mesenchyme (MM) initiate nephrogenesis [10]. In part driven by developmental regulators Ret, Gfra1, Wnt11, Wnt6, and Pax2 in the UB and Bmp4, Gdnf, Pax2, and Wt1 in the MM, the UB invades the adjacent MM, generating the collecting duct [1016]. The UB then branches to form a T shape within the MM. The two ends of the T structure then induce formation of the cap mesenchyme, which contains nephron stem cells and progenitors, as well as stromal cells that support kidney ontogenesis by producing signaling molecules, for example retinoic acid, promoting expression of Ret, ERK, MAPK, PI3K, PLC, and WNT [14, 1720] in the UB. The iteration of this process produces both the branched structure of the ducts and nephron multiplicity. The MM cells then aggregate and, responding to Wnt signaling [21], undergo mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition to produce the renal vesicle or nephron progenitor [1013]. Vesicle cells polarize, first establishing a proximal-to-distal axis [22] followed by an apical-basal one [23, 24]. After polarization, the renal vesicle reshapes in the form of a comma, then that of an S, and fuses with the UB, while cells differentiate morphologically [10, 25]. The S-shaped body gives rise to the glomerulus, Bowman’s capsule, and both proximal and distal tubules. The intermediate region of the S-shaped body, instead, yields the loop of Henle [26]. Mesangial cells, integral to the glomerulus, derive from the stromal cells [15, 27]. Finally, the vasculature is formed by mesodermal cells that migrate into the developing kidney [28].

3. The Drosophila Renal System

In the fly, filtration is carried out by specialized cells called nephrocytes, which display remarkable similarities to the human podocytes [6]. Nephrocytes were originally discovered in the 1800s and found to uptake and store multiple compounds, including silver nitrate, albumin, and dyes [2934]. Nephrocytes are found in two clusters: one, called pericardial, near the tubular heart and the other, called garland, harboring two nuclei, close to the esophagus [6, 3236]. Drosophila nephrocytes display characteristic in-folding of the plasma membrane which form channels flanked by foot processes [6]. Ultrastructural studies have revealed that nephrocytes form a three-layered filter morphologically similar to that formed by the vertebrate podocytes [6, 3234, 36, 37]. Like human podocytes, pericardial nephrocytes filter and reabsorb solutes from the Drosophila circulating fluid, called haemolymph, via channels regulated by 30 nm wide slit diaphragms [3840]. Slit diaphragms feature two filaments composed of proteins encoded by genes sticks and stones (sns) and dumbfounded (duf, also called kirre), a NEPH1 ortholog [6]. Other protein components of the nephrocyte slit diaphragm include the products of genes mec-2, a podocin ortholog, and pyd, a ZO-1 ortholog [6]. Alike human podocytes, a basement membrane enwraps each nephrocyte. Together, the nephrocyte diaphragm and the basement membrane form the filtration barrier in Drosophila, the integrity of which is maintained by protein-protein interactions between orthologs of the human slit diaphragm proteins (Figure 1). The filtrate is actively endocytosed from the sides of the channels, retained in cell vacuoles and either broken down (proteins) or stored (toxins, silver nitrate) [41]. The recent findings that nephrocytes may be apicobasally and basolaterally polarized reinforced their similarity with human podocytes [42, 43]. Moreover, nephrocytes and podocytes appear to respond similarly to pharmacological treatment. Administration of puromycin [44] and protamine sulfate [42] was found to disrupt the filtration barrier. Because of their extensive functional overlap with the necessary podocytes, the discovery that nephrocytes are, instead, dispensable in the adult fly, yet necessary for larval survival [45], was surprising and future studies are being targeted to understand this apparent paradox.

Nephrocytes have been used to model human nephrotic syndromes, in which podocyte processes are effaced as a consequence of mutations in the genes encoding for slit diaphragm proteins. Because these models have been recently reviewed, we refer interested readers to [46].

3.1. Malpighian Tubule Morphology

In Drosophila two pairs of MTs are made of a single-layered epithelium and depart from the interface between mid- and hind-gut (Figure 3). With one tubule residing more anteriorly and the other more posteriorly within the abdominal cavity, the MTs are folded in a stereotypical way, which is thought to ensure efficient metabolic waste removal and osmoregulation in the open circulatory system typical of insects. Unlike the mammalian closed circulatory system in which the circulating fluid is subject to glomerular ultrafiltration, Drosophila haemolymph is, instead, filtered. Also different from the mammalian nephrons that are embedded in organ tissues, the two MTs are free inside the fly’s body cavity and can be cleanly microdissected. Anterior and posterior MTs can be distinguished both functionally and morphologically, because of their distinct transcriptomes and the anterior tubule being longer [47].

The anterior tubule pair can be divided into four sections: initial, transitional, main, and terminal (Figure 3). These regions contain type I cells, known as principal cells, and type II cells, known as stellate cells (Figure 3). Principal cells arise from a key interaction between the midgut and the hindgut, constitute about ~80% of all tubule cells, and are responsible for the transport of cations and organic solutes [48]. Stellate cells are scattered around the principal cells and are responsible for water and chloride ion (Cl-) flow [48, 49]. Reducing tubular expression of the vacuolar- (V-) ATPase by using fruit flies heterozygous for a lethal insertion in the gene encoding for the V-ATPase beta subunit revealed that cation transport may solely be performed by principal cells [50]. Stellate cells were only found in secretory regions and were absent from reabsorptive regions, suggesting that they may have secretory roles [50]. The cells in the MT initial segment are thinner and may excrete specifically Ca2+ ions at high rates [51]. Cells of the terminal segment appear to regulate ion and water balance via selective readsorption from and secretion into primary urine and by removing nitrogen-containing catabolites from the haemolymph via active transport of uric acid to the tubule lumen and passive diffusion of other molecules through the intercellular spaces. As the primary urine is transported along the tubule, it is sequentially transformed, a process that requires both apicobasal cell polarization of the tubular epithelium and planar cell polarity. Tubular cells were found to be functionally differentiated in a proximal-to-distal fashion and the processed urine is eventually secreted by the more distal cells. Because of their fundamental role in detoxification, the normal development of MTs is essential in the fruit fly.

Just like human nephrons, Drosophila MTs exhibit internal marked asymmetry which corresponds to distinct spatial domains of gene expression [50, 51]. Analyses of enhancer trap expression in the MTs revealed that the initial, transitional, and main segment of the anterior tubules and the sole main segment in the posterior tubules correspond to different cell types and distinct physiological functions [50]. The main segment was found to secrete potassium chloride (KCl) and water at high rates [52] and the lower third of the tubule carried out reabsorption [50]. The lower regions of the MTs appeared to modify the travelling fluid from the main segment by reabsorbing potassium ions (K+) [53] but not water [54], contrary to what was previously reported [50]. Moreover, the lower tubules were found to acidify the fluid and transport Ca2+ into the lumen (Figure 3) [53]. Remarkably, in just about 15 seconds, the cells located in the main segment of the Drosophila MTs were found to secrete fluid in amounts equal to their own volume, making the MTs the fastest known filtering system [52, 54]. While the observed functional complexity of the MTs was initially found surprising and in apparent contradiction with its reputation as a simplified epithelial developmental model [50], this same functional complexity turned out to be an asset for modeling human renal disease in combination with the available genetic and technological tools for probing ion transport [52].

3.2. Ion Transport and Fluid Secretion in the Malpighian Tubules

In the MTs, multiple ion transporters regulate ion balance in different sections. An apical V-ATPase generates a primary proton gradient that fuels the activity of sodium/proton (Na+/H+) and K+/H+ exchangers, also apically localized, which release Na+ and K+, respectively, in the lumen [54]. K+/Cl cotransporters localized at the basolateral membrane [55] decrease K+ concentration in the secreted fluid as it passes through the lower tubule [53]. Channels found in stellate cells transport Cl from the haemolymph to the lumen and are under control of the leucokinin peptide-hormone family [49, 54]. Leucokinins are synthesized in response to increased intracellular Ca2+ and promote both fluid secretion and epithelial permeability to Cl- [56].

Cardioacceleratory neuropeptide CAP2b was found to stimulate fluid secretion specifically via cyclic GMP (cGMP) and to activate the nitric oxide (NO) signaling pathway [52, 57] that regulates salt and water balance in the fly MTs [58]. Early studies tested if increased concentration of intracellular Ca2+ could stimulate CAP2b and activate the NO/cGMP pathway in different cell types [59]. Producing the first Ca2+ reporter system in Drosophila MTs, Rosay and collaborators expressed aequorin, a Ca2+-sensitive luminescent protein, in principal cells in the tubule main segment via the GAL4/UAS binary expression system [59, 60]. As aequorin was produced in the tubules in vivo, luminescence indicated both the amount of aequorin and Ca2+ amounts. Stimulation of CAP2b-dependent physiological responses caused rapid Ca2+ release from internal stores [59]. Because in this system no CAP2b stimulation was observed in stellate cells, principal and stellate cells of the main segment are unlikely to be connected through gap junctions [59].

3.3. Malpighian Tubule Development

The MTs start forming as four primordia derived from the hindgut primordium and visceral mesoderm in the six-hour embryo [4, 61] in a process requiring the gap gene product Krüppel (Kr) and the transcription factor Cut [48, 62, 63]. The specification of future tubule cells is determined via Kr [48] and, similar to mammalian kidney development, the Wnt pathway [10, 48].

Each tubule primordium contains a unique tip cell specified by lateral inhibition via the Notch pathway [4, 48, 64]. The tip cell segregates and activates the Epidermal Growth Factor receptor homolog DER [65] which promotes cell proliferation, tubular growth, and development of the MTs excretory system [64, 65]. As the MTs grow closer to the caudal mesoderm they induce mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition in nearby cells that will insert themselves in the tubules and become stellate cells [4]. The ectoderm-derived tubular epithelium is formed of principal cells [4] and the ureter of ectodermal cells [4]. Cells divide a definite number of times to give rise to 146 principal and 33 stellate cells in each anterior tubule and 105 principal and 22 stellate cells in each posterior tubule in Drosophila [50, 66]. Most of tubule ontogenesis is completed during embryogenesis, and the MTs are not histolysed during metamorphosis. Using positively-marked mosaic lineage with GFP-labeled proliferating cells enabled the discovery of multipotent adult stem cells in the lower tubule and ureter [4]. Such cells require JAK-STAT signaling for self-renewal and are analogous to stem cells activated during repair of kidney ischemic injury [4].

3.4. Immune Function of the Malpighian Tubules

The MT epithelium is part of the fly’s defenses against pathogens. The MTs display innate immunity with both humoral and cellular responses and no adaptive response, as is typical for insects [67, 68]. Remarkably, studies in Drosophila first revealed the immune function of Toll-receptor signaling [69]. In fact, the Toll gene, originally identified for its function in embryonic polarity [70], was later found to function in immunity [71] and to have a few homologs in the fly, including “18-wheeler” [72] and multiple vertebrate ones dubbed Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs). Unlike other fly organs involved in immunity, the MTs display constitutive production of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) [73]. Upon sensing infection, the MTs activate distinct pathways when triggered by specific pathogens. The Toll pathway was found to respond to fungal and Gram-positive bacterial infections and the immune deficiency (IMD) pathway to respond to Gram-negative bacterial infections [74, 75]. MTs may also initiate a Toll-independent humoral response [76]. All these eventually trigger release of seven groups of AMPs, either directly from the MTs [73] or indirectly from the fat-body, the latter being the fly liver-equivalent [68, 69, 77]. The groups of AMPs, Drosomycin, Metchnikowin, Defensin, Attacin, Cecropin, Drosocin, and Diptericin, appear to inhibit growth of haemolymph-invading microorganisms [77]. Both the IMD and Toll pathways were found to sense superficial peptidoglycan on the bacterial cell wall via signaling by peptidoglycan-recognition proteins (PGRP) in the MTs principal cells and gut [69, 78, 79]. PGRP function has mainly been studied in the gut [80], yet the pathway appears to function similarly in the MTs. The Toll proteins display homology to the cytoplasmic domain of the vertebrate interleukin 1 receptor and participate into similar intracellular signaling cascades [81]. The IMD pathway is considered to be equivalent to the vertebrate TNF pathway [75]. Both Toll and IMD pathways result in activation of NF-κB-like transcription factor Relish and induce transcriptional changes [82].

The steroid hormone ecdysone that regulates principal and stellate cell fluid secretion [68] also affects MT-dependent immunity. Ecdysone may promote haemocyte proliferation and fast pathogen encapsulation [83]. In S2 cells, ecdysone was also found to induce transcription of the PGRP-LC gene encoding the peptidoglycan receptor and, independently, of a subset of AMPs [84]. Ecdysone also triggers histolysis during metamorphosis [83]. However, the MTs are resistant to this process, possibly due to their fundamental role in immunity. Diap2, an antiapoptotic protein, was also found to contribute to the innate response in the IMD pathway, possibly via regulation of MT ion channels [85]. Diap2 levels increased in the MTs when there was an immune threat; conversely, decreased Diap2 made flies more prone to infections [85].

Finally, upon septic infection, the MT-dependent immune response may alternatively be activated via the NO pathway, which in turn initiates the IMD pathway and leads to increased NO Synthase (dNOS) and improved fly survival [67, 68].

With growing appreciation for the importance of the MT immune function, the ongoing mechanistic studies of gut-mediated immunity will provide resources and paradigms to better define the role of the MTs in the defense from pathogens.

4. Malpighian Tubules to Model Disease

MTs have been utilized to study the physiology of fluid transport because of their anatomical accessibility, streamlined anatomy, and one-cell-thick epithelium. In MTs, the proliferation of the founder cells (anlage), their spatial organization, patterning, and differentiation occur in sequence, rather than concurrently as in other epithelia, enabling studies of separate stages in time course experiments. MTs and mammalian nephrons share functionally distinct regions (Figures 2 and 3), analogous functions, and display remarkable transcriptome conservation [47, 86]. For example, similar to mammalian renal tubules, MTs carry out detoxification thanks to high levels of cytochrome P450 and glutathione transferase [87]. Likewise, mutations in evolutionarily conserved V-ATPase subunits were initially discovered in Drosophila because of their renal phenotypes [88, 89]. Three years later, equivalent mutations in the human ATP6B1 V-ATPase were reported to cause similar defects in patients [90]. As the interest in modeling renal function in the fly continues to grow, we review some of the successful examples below.

4.1. Nephrolithiasis

Drosophila has been used to model the most common kind of human kidney stones, namely, calcium oxalate nephrolithiasis [91]. Nephrolithiasis refers to the formation and movement of kidney stones in the urinary tract [91]. There are multiple types of kidney stones that are distinguished for their different composition and origin. Largely dependent on diet and metabolism, kidney stones in the urinary tract are most commonly composed of calcium oxalate (CaOx) and, in lesser quantities, calcium maleate or phosphate. Also dependent on diet and metabolism, cysts composed of uric acid develop when urine is too acidic, for example in severe dehydration, gout, or following chemotherapy. Struvite cysts are caused by kidney infections and may result in urinary obstruction [91]. Finally, cystine stones form as crystals of leaked cystine in rare cystinuria patients. While rats had been the model of choice for CaOx stone formation [92], prohibitive costs of breeding and caring inspired Chen and colleagues [92] to model nephrolithiasis in the fly. Similar to rodents, flies appeared to respond to oral administration of lithogenic agents ethylene glycol, hydroxyl-L-proline, and sodium oxalate, by inducing formation of CaOx crystals in the MTs between two and three weeks after ingestion. Importantly, response severity was dose-dependent [92].

Recently, RNAi-mediated knockdown of the enzyme xanthine dehydrogenase (Xdh) in the fly was shown to induce ectopic calcification and accumulation of crystals and stones in the MTs [93]. Well-fed Xdh-knockdown flies only survived three days, as opposed to 60 days of the wild type control. Chemical analysis of the stones by micro X-ray fluorescence revealed significant amounts of Ca2+ and zinc (Zn). Because the latter had never been involved in kidney stone formation before, genetic confirmation was obtained by RNAi-mediated inhibition of Zn transporters in the fly, which was found to decrease stone formation [93]. Dietary and pharmacologic modulation of Zn levels in the fly and analyses of human kidney stones further confirmed Zn as a bona fide component [93]. In this case, the Drosophila model enabled the discovery of a new contributor to nephrolithiasis and indicated Zn-metabolic enzymes as potential therapeutic targets [93]. One issue to be clarified is that dietary Zn intake has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones in the adult (yet not in adolescent) individuals, while inhibiting Zn excretion was found to reduce cyst formation in the fly. One of the possible ways to interpret these apparently contradicting results posits that Zn may promote formation of different crystals depending on concentration [94] and indicates the need to probe additional physiological parameters in future studies to capture the complexity of kidney stone formation.

Flies have been used to study the processes leading to formation of uric acid stones because of their high levels of urate crystals normally accumulating in the tubule. Systematic analyses of the 33 genes encoding for subunits of the V-ATPase, some of which with multiple isoforms, revealed that mutants in the genes encoding core V-ATPase subunits displayed transparent MTs as a result of urine acidification, which decreased uric acid crystallization [89]. Notably, similar acidification defects were also found in patients with mutations in two V-ATPase subunits, which suggests a certain degree of functional conservation [90, 95].

4.2. Polycystic Kidney Disease

Polycystic kidney disease (PKD) is a genetic disease affecting at least 12.5 million people world-wide, regardless of ethnicity [96]. Two forms of PKD exist, one autosomal dominant (AD) and one, rarer and more severe, which is autosomal recessive (AR) [96] and will not be discussed here. ADPKD causes the development and progressive enlargement of fluid-filled cysts in the nephron, that consequently increase kidney size and cause interstitial fibrosis and chronic kidney disease by age 55 [96]. In half of the patients the severe damage results in kidney failure, making dialysis or renal transplant the only treatments [96]. The lack of a cure and dialysis costs that can surpass 150,000$ per patient per year [1] make PKD a global priority.

Genetic Underpinning of PKD. More than 85% of ADPKD patients carry mutations in the PKD1 gene, which encodes polycystin-1, a G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) [97]. Complete mutational inactivation of both alleles is rare and lethal pre- or peri-natally [96]; however, incompletely penetrant PKD1 alleles have been found in homozygosis [98]. Mutations in another gene, PKD2, are found in about 10% of ADPKD cases [97]. PKD2 encodes polycystin-2, a transmembrane calcium channel of the TRPP family which was found to physically interact with polycystin-1 [99, 100]. The remaining ~5% of ADPKD patients carry unknown mutations other than PKD1 or PKD2 [101]. Because of their clear implication in PKD etiology, PKD1 and PKD2 genes and corresponding polycystin-1 and polycystin-2 gene products are being studied in much detail. Polycystin-1 and polycystin-2 complexes were found to mediate cell-matrix and cell-cell interactions, planar cell polarity, signal transduction, and cilia-mediated mechanosensation [96]. We have recently reported that cystic tissue from ADPKD patients carrying a PKD1 mutation exhibited significant reduction of the Bicaudal C (BICC1) gene expression [102]. Similarly, Pkd1−/− mice displayed reduced Bicc1 protein specifically in the kidneys [102], placing BICC1 genetically downstream of PKD1. Mutations in the BicC gene of many vertebrates, including humans, cause the development of renal cysts [103110]. BicC was originally discovered in the fly during a screen for embryonic polarity determinants in the germline [111].

Cyst formation is complex and unfolds over time. ADPKD patients carrying PKD1 or PKD2 mutations already display small renal cysts at birth [96] yet remain asymptomatic until middle age because the renal capacity is in vast excess (in fact, donation of one kidney is compatible with life). After then, kidney function declines rapidly. Because polycystin-1 and polycystin-2 are part of multiple protein complexes with wide cellular distribution, dysregulation of either in the renal tubule affects many pathways, including apicobasal and planar cell polarity, cell proliferation, cell metabolism, fluid secretion, and the extracellular matrix [112115]. In PKD cysts form in the renal tubular epithelium where some cells reactivate normally quiescent proliferation pathways and begin to divide. In parallel, epithelial polarization is progressively lost, impacting secretion. Fluid accumulation in the cysts, in turn, stimulates further cell division, possibly in response to increased tensional stretch in the tissue [116, 117]. It is currently unclear what triggers cyst formation. As cysts expand, tubular cells display activation of various signal transduction pathways mediated by Ca2+ and cAMP, e.g., Raf-MEK-ERK [118, 119], the mammalian Target of Rapamycin (mTOR), PI3-kinase-Akt, JAK-STAT, NF-kB, Wnt, Hippo, and G-proteins [115, 118130]. In spite of the enumeration of these pathways, the mechanisms of cyst initiation and progressive cystic degeneration remain largely unknown, likely because of the anatomical complexity of the vertebrate kidney and slow disease onset, which hinder experimental probing. The BicC fly provided the first account of renal cysts in Drosophila [102]. Modeling PKD in the fly may enable biochemical characterization of the cystic tubule and define the genetics of cyst formation and progression due to low genetic redundancy, and may advance our understanding of the core cystic processes. BicC encodes a conserved cytoplasmic RNA-binding protein with orthologs in many species [104, 105, 109, 131133]. BicC can bind to multiple mRNA targets and appeared to reduce their expression posttranscriptionally [134]. The resulting target upregulation in the oocytes from heterozygote BicC female flies was found to disrupt anterior-posterior embryonic polarity [7, 115135], while BicC homozygotes displayed oogenesis arrest at stage 10 [136]. Similar to ADPKD patients, BicC mutant flies featured fluid-filled cysts in the MTs already at hatching; over time the cysts enlarged and became more numerous [102]. Compared to wild type, BicC flies were short-lived, possibly a consequence of their defective renal function [102]. BicC MTs also displayed extra branches, indicating underlying developmental and polarity defects. Oocytes from BicC mutant flies exhibited abnormal actin structures which prevented secretion of the dorsal fate determinant Gurken [137141]. Similarly, the BicC protein was required for epithelial polarization via cadherin-mediated cell adhesion in the IMCD murine kidney cell line [142]. Initial molecular analyses of the BicC MTs identified the activation of the myc and TOR pathways, two hallmarks of vertebrate PKD [102]. Like ADPKD patients, postrenal transplantation (in which diseased kidneys are left in place) and administration of the immune suppressant and TOR inhibitor rapamycin could transiently rescue the BicC flies and reduce cysts, relative to untreated controls [102, 126]. Murine PKD models also exhibited mTOR cascade stimulation [143148] and responded to rapamycin by delaying cystic onset [126, 145, 149]. In sum, the BicC cystic flies appeared to recapitulate many of the diseased features of PKD, displayed pharmacological response to rapamycin [102], and may be a valid model to advance our understanding of the molecular bases of renal cyst formation and the formation of extra tubular branches. One interesting aspect is that ciliary (dys)function appears prominent in vertebrate PKD [150]. The absence of ciliated epithelia in Drosophila raises the intriguing question of how cysts form and develop in BicC MTs versus human nephrons. Considering that other ciliary pathways, e.g., hedgehog, were originally discovered in the fly, the striking biochemical similarities between PKD-type cysts and the BicC-dependent cysts in the fly may not be as surprising and may suggest new hypotheses on the evolution of ciliary function.

With proper consideration of the differences between flies and humans and of the hierarchical relationship between the BicC and PKD1 genes, the BicC cystic fly may offer opportunity to chart conserved pathways that are altered in BicC mutation, are relevant for cyst formation and/or progression, may allow to form new hypotheses on BicC function and disease mechanism, and contribute to our understanding of the larger functional context of human PKD. Considering that BicC was also found in a protein complex linked to human nephronophthisis, another cystic kidney disease [110, 133], future studies will reveal if BicC function may affect multiple pathways of renal cystogenesis.

5. Conclusion

The remarkable conservation of renal functions between fruit flies and humans is suggestive of the presence of strong evolutionary constraints imposed on the detoxification process of all organisms. Emerging evidence of the interplay between renal and immune functions suggests additional requirements for the renal system. Multiple diseases causing progressive degeneration and loss of function of the kidney result in organ damage that may only be remedied by renal replacement therapy or dialysis, which are costly socially for the health care system and personally to the patients and their families, due to their negative impact on quality of life. Studies aiming at understanding the mechanisms of renal disease have been hindered by the anatomical complexity of the mammalian kidney. Drosophila possesses an evolutionary intermediate between glomerular and nonglomerular renal system, consisting of anatomically separated renal tubules and nephrocytes that, together, fulfill the renal functions. Similar developmental origin of the fly MTs and nephrocytes with their human counterparts, the nephron and the glomerular podocytes, respectively, is accompanied by conserved cellular pathways. Making the fruit fly a useful model to study the mechanisms of disease, the structurally streamlined, anatomically isolated, renal structures can be easily microdissected and studied biochemically; moreover, they can be probed genetically utilizing the vast array of Drosophila genetic tools. In multiple cases in which human renal disease has been modeled in Drosophila, including nephrolithiasis and PKD, the conservation seemed to extend to pharmacological responses, echoing similar examples in other fly disease models. Considering that many drug binding sites were found to be conserved in the fly [151], development of proper pharmacological screen protocols in the fly may in future provide a rapid and effective alternative strategy for drug discovery.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Cassandra Millet-Boureima contributed sections on MT and nephron function, development and disease modeling, made the figures, and edited the manuscript. Jessica Porras Marroquin wrote text on nephrocytes and podocytes and conducted a literature search that contributed to the manuscript in its current format. Chiara Gamberi contributed sections on PKD, MT, nephron function and development, planned contents, and edited the manuscript.


The authors are grateful to C. Charbonneau (Institut de Recherche en Immunologie et Cancerologie) for help with the graphics and to Professor W. D. Lubell for discussion. This research was funded in part by a CUPFA Professional Development Award to Chiara Gamberi.


  1. K. L. Lentine, H. Xiao, G. Machnicki, A. Gheorghian, and M. A. Schnitzler, “Renal function and healthcare costs in patients with polycystic kidney disease,” Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 1471–1479, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. K. W. Beyenbach and P. L.-F. Liu, “Mechanism of fluid secretion common to aglomerular and glomerular kidneys,” Kidney International, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1543–1548, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. J. A. T. Dow and M. F. Romero, “Drosophila provides rapid modeling of renal development, function, and disease,” American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology, vol. 299, no. 6, pp. F1237–F1244, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. S. R. Singh, W. Liu, and S. X. Hou, “The adult Drosophila Malpighian tubules are maintained by multipotent stem cells,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 191–203, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. S. H. P. Maddrell, “The fastest fluid‐secreting cell known: The upper Malpighian tubule of Rhodnius,” BioEssays, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 357–362, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. H. Weavers, S. Prieto-Sánchez, F. Grawe et al., “The insect nephrocyte is a podocyte-like cell with a filtration slit diaphragm,” Nature, vol. 457, no. 7227, pp. 322–326, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. R. Rodewald and M. J. Karnovsky, “Porous substructure of the glomerular slit diaphragm in the rat and mouse,” The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 423–433, 1974. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. H. Pavenstädt, W. Kriz, and M. Kretzler, “Cell biology of the glomerular podocyte,” Physiological Reviews, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 253–307, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. R. G. Spiro, “Studies on the renal glomerular basement membrane. Preparation and chemical composition,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 242, no. 8, pp. 1915–1922, 1967. View at: Google Scholar
  10. N. Barker, M. B. Rookmaaker, P. Kujala et al., “Lgr5+ve stem/progenitor cells contribute to nephron formation during kidney development,” Cell Reports, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 540–552, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. A. T. Dudley, K. M. Lyons, and E. J. Robertson, “A requirement for bone morphogenetic protein-7 during development of the mammalian kidney and eye,” Genes & Development, vol. 9, no. 22, pp. 2795–2807, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. T. J. Carroll, J. S. Park, S. Hayashi, A. Majumdar, and A. P. McMahon, “Wnt9b plays a central role in the regulation of mesenchymal to epithelial transitions underlying organogenesis of the mammalian urogenital system,” Developmental Cell, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 283–292, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. K. Stark, S. Vainio, G. Vassileva, and A. P. McMahon, “Epithelial transformation metanephric mesenchyme in the developing kidney regulated by Wnt-4,” Nature, vol. 372, no. 6507, pp. 679–683, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. S. Jain, “The many faces of RET dysfunction in kidney,” Organogenesis, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 177–190, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. A. Kobayashi, M. T. Valerius, J. W. Mugford et al., “Six2 defines and regulates a multipotent self-renewing nephron progenitor population throughout mammalian kidney development,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 169–181, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. A. J. Murphy, J. Pierce, C. De Caestecker et al., “SIX2 and CITED1, markers of nephronic progenitor self-renewal, remain active in primitive elements of Wilms' tumor,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1239–1248, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. E. Batourina, S. Gim, N. Bello et al., “Vitamin A controls epithelial/mesenchymal interactions through Ret expression,” Nature Genetics, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 74–78, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. B. D. Humphreys, S.-L. Lin, A. Kobayashi et al., “Fate tracing reveals the pericyte and not epithelial origin of myofibroblasts in kidney fibrosis,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 176, no. 1, pp. 85–97, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. A. Tufro, J. Teichman, N. Banu, and G. Villegas, “Crosstalk between VEGF-A/VEGFR2 and GDNF/RET signaling pathways,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 358, no. 2, pp. 410–416, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. I. V. Yosypiv, M. Schroeder, and S. S. El-Dahr, “Angiotensin II type 1 receptor-EGF receptor cross-talk regulates ureteric bud branching morphogenesis,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1005–1014, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. J.-K. Guo and L. G. Cantley, “Cellular maintenance and repair of the kidney,” Annual Review of Physiology, vol. 72, pp. 357–376, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. R. Kopan, H.-T. Cheng, and K. Surendran, “Molecular insights into segmentation along the proximal-distal axis of the nephron,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 2014–2020, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. K. Georgas, B. Rumballe, M. T. Valerius et al., “Analysis of early nephron patterning reveals a role for distal RV proliferation in fusion to the ureteric tip via a cap mesenchyme-derived connecting segment,” Developmental Biology, vol. 332, no. 2, pp. 273–286, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. C. Heliot, A. Desgrange, I. Buisson et al., “HNF1B controls proximal-intermediate nephron segment identity in vertebrates by regulating Notch signalling components and Irx1/2,” Development, vol. 140, no. 4, pp. 873–885, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. M. Takemoto, L. He, J. Norlin et al., “Large-scale identification of genes implicated in kidney glomerulus development and function,” EMBO Journal, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1160–1174, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. K. Reidy and A. Tufro, “Semaphorins in kidney development and disease: Modulators of ureteric bud branching, vascular morphogenesis, and podocyte-endothelial crosstalk,” Pediatric Nephrology, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1407–1412, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. H. Hölthofer, K. Sainio, and A. Miettinen, “The glomerular mesangium: studies of its developmental origin and markers in vivo and in vitro,” APMIS-Acta Pathologica, Microbiologica et Immunologica Scandinavica, vol. 103, no. 1-6, pp. 354–366, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. J. W. Mugford, P. Sipilä, J. A. McMahon, and A. P. McMahon, “Osr1 expression demarcates a multi-potent population of intermediate mesoderm that undergoes progressive restriction to an Osr1-dependent nephron progenitor compartment within the mammalian kidney,” Developmental Biology, vol. 324, no. 1, pp. 88–98, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. A. Weismann, “Die nachembryonale Entwicklung der Musciden nach Beobachtungen an Musca vomitoria und Sarcophaga carnaria,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie, vol. 14, pp. 187–336, 1864. View at: Google Scholar
  30. A. O. Kowalevsky, “Zum Verhalten des Rückengefäßes und des guirlandenförmigen Zellstranges der Musciden während der Metamorphose,” Biologisches Centralblatt, vol. 6, pp. 74–79, 1886. View at: Google Scholar
  31. A. C. Hollande, “La cellule péricardiale des insectes: Cytologie, histochemie, role physiologique,” Archives D'anatomie Microscopique, vol. 18, pp. 85–307, 1922. View at: Google Scholar
  32. R. P. Mills and R. C. King, “The pericardial cells of Drosophila melanogaster,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 106, pp. 261–268, 1965. View at: Google Scholar
  33. S. K. Aggarwal and R. C. King, “The ultrastructure of the wreath cells of Drosophila melanogaster larvae,” Protoplasma, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 343–352, 1967. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. A. C. Crossley, “The ultrastructure and function of pericardial cells and other nephrocytes in an insect: Calliphora erythrocephala,” Tissue & Cell, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 529–560, 1972. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. J. Miller, T. Chi, P. Kapahi et al., “Drosophila melanogaster as an emerging translational model of human nephrolithiasis,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 190, no. 5, pp. 1648–1656, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. S. Zhuang, H. Shao, F. Guo, R. Trimble, E. Pearce, and S. M. Abmayr, “Sns and Kirre, the Drosophila orthologs of Nephrin and Neph1, direct adhesion, fusion and formation of a slit diaphragm-like structure in insect nephrocytes,” Development, vol. 136, no. 14, pp. 2335–2344, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. M. Kestilä, U. Lenkkeri, M. Männikkö et al., “Positionally cloned gene for a novel glomerular protein—nephrin—is mutated in congenital nephrotic syndrome,” Molecular Cell, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 575–582, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. M. Simons and T. B. Huber, “Flying podocytes,” Kidney International, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 455–457, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. J. Na and R. Cagan, “The Drosophila nephrocyte: Back on stage,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 161–163, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. F. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Y. Chao, K. Muir, and Z. Han, “Cubilin and amnionless mediate protein reabsorption in Drosophila nephrocytes,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 209–216, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. R. L. Cagan, “The Drosophila nephrocyte,” Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 409–415, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. T. Hermle, D. A. Braun, M. Helmstädter, T. B. Huber, and F. Hildebrandt, “Modeling monogenic human nephrotic syndrome in the Drosophila garland cell nephrocyte,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1521–1533, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. F. Hochapfel, L. Denk, G. Mendl et al., “Distinct functions of Crumbs regulating slit diaphragms and endocytosis in Drosophila nephrocytes,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 74, no. 24, pp. 4573–4586, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. A. S. Tutor, S. Prieto-Sánchez, and M. Ruiz-Gómez, “Src64B phosphorylates Dumbfounded and regulates slit diaphragm dynamics: Drosophila as a model to study nephropathies,” Development, vol. 141, no. 2, pp. 367–376, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. J. R. Ivy, M. Drechsler, J. H. Catterson et al., “Klf15 is critical for the development and differentiation of Drosophila nephrocytes,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 8, Article ID e0134620, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. M. Helmstädter, T. B. Huber, and T. Hermle, “Using the Drosophila nephrocyte to model podocyte function and disease,” Frontiers in Pediatrics, vol. 5, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. J. Wang, L. Kean, J. Yang et al., “Function-informed transcriptome analysis of Drosophila renal tubule,” Genome Biology, vol. 5, no. 9, p. R69, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. A. C. Jung, B. Denholm, H. Skaer, and M. Affolter, “Renal tubule development in Drosophila: A closer look at the cellular level,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 322–328, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. M. J. O'Donnell, M. R. Rheault, S. A. Davies et al., “Hormonally controlled chloride movement across Drosophila tubules is via ion channels in stellate cells,” American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, vol. 274, no. 4, pp. R1039–R1049, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. M. A. Sözen, J. D. Armstrong, M. Yang, K. Kaiser, and J. A. T. Dow, “Functional domains are specified to single-cell resolution in a Drosophila epithelium,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 10, pp. 5207–5212, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. V. R. Chintapalli, S. Terhzaz, J. Wang et al., “Functional correlates of positional and gender-specific renal asymmetry in Drosophila,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 4, Article ID e32577, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. J. A. T. Dow, S. H. P. Maddrell, S.-A. Davies, N. J. V. Skaer, and K. Kaiser, “A novel role for the nitric oxide-cGMP signaling pathway: The control of epithelial function in Drosophila,” American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, vol. 266, no. 5, pp. R1716–R1719, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. M. J. O'Donnell and S. H. Maddrell, “Fluid reabsorption and ion transport by the lower Malpighian tubules of adult female Drosophila,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 198, no. 8, pp. 1647–1653, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  54. M. R. Rheault and M. J. O'Donnell, “Analysis of epithelial k+ transport in Malpighian tubules of Drosophila melanogaster: Evidence for spatial and temporal heterogeneity,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 204, no. 13, pp. 2289–2299, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  55. S. M. Linton and M. J. O'Donnell, “Contributions of K+:Cl- cotransport and Na+/K+-ATPase to basolateral ion transport in Malpighian tubules of Drosophila melanogaster,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 202, no. 11, pp. 1561–1570, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  56. M. J. O'Donnell, J. A. T. Dow, G. R. Huesmann, N. J. Tublitz, and S. H. P. Maddrell, “Separate control of anion and cation transport in Malpighian tubules of Drosophila melanogaster,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 199, no. 5, pp. 1163–1175, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  57. S. A. Davies, G. R. Huesmann, S. H. P. Maddrell et al., “CAP(2b), a cardioacceleratory peptide, is present in Drosophila and stimulates tubule fluid secretion via cGMP,” American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, vol. 269, no. 6, pp. R1321–R1326, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. A. Martínez, “Nitric oxide synthase in invertebrates,” The Histochemical Journal, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 770–776, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. C. Dani, A. G. Smith, S. Dessolin et al., “Differentiation of embryonic stem cells into adipocytes in vitro,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 110, no. 11, pp. 1279–1285, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  60. A. H. Brand and N. Perrimon, “Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes,” Development, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 401–415, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  61. P. Baumann and H. Skaer, “The Drosophila EGF receptor homologue (DER) is required for Malpighian tubule development,” Development, vol. 119, pp. 65–75, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  62. R. Harbecke and W. Janning, “The segmentation gene Krüppel of Drosophila melanogaster has homeotic properties,” Genes & Development, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 114–122, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. B. Denholm, V. Sudarsan, S. Pasalodos-Sanchez et al., “Dual origin of the renal tubules in Drosophila: Mesodermal cells integrate and polarize to establish secretory function,” Current Biology, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1052–1057, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. S. Wan, A.-M. Cato, and H. Skaer, “Multiple signalling pathways establish cell fate and cell number in Drosophila Malpighian tubules,” Developmental Biology, vol. 217, no. 1, pp. 153–165, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. E. Livneh, L. Glazer, D. Segal, J. Schlessinger, and B.-Z. Shilo, “The Drosophila EGF receptor gene homolog: Conservation of both hormone binding and kinase domains,” Cell, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 599–607, 1985. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. W. Janning, A. Lutz, and D. Wissen, “Clonal analysis of the blastoderm anlage of the Malpighian tubules in Drosophila melanogaster,” Roux's Archives of Developmental Biology, vol. 195, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 1986. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. J. McGettigan, R. K. J. McLennan, K. E. Broderick et al., “Insect renal tubules constitute a cell-autonomous immune system that protects the organism against bacterial infection,” Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 741–754, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. N. K. Gautam, P. Verma, and M. G. Tapadia, “Drosophila Malpighian tubules: A model for understanding kidney development, function, and disease,” Results and Problems in Cell Differentiation, vol. 60, pp. 3–25, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. S.-A. Davies, G. Overend, S. Sebastian et al., “Immune and stress response "cross-talk" in the Drosophila Malpighian tubule,” Journal of Insect Physiology, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 488–497, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. K. V. Anderson, “Pinning down positional information: Dorsal-ventral polarity in the Drosophila embryo,” Cell, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 439–442, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. B. Lemaitre, E. Nicolas, L. Michaut, J. Reichhart, and J. A. Hoffmann, “The dorsoventral regulatory gene cassette spatzle/Toll/Cactus controls the potent antifungal response in Drosophila adults,” Cell, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 973–983, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. M. J. Williams, A. Rodriguez, D. A. Kimbrell, and E. D. Eldon, “The 18-wheeler mutation reveals complex antibacterial gene regulation in Drosophila host defense,” EMBO Journal, vol. 16, no. 20, pp. 6120–6130, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. P. Verma, M. G. Tapadia, and M. Kango-Singh, “Correction: Immune response and anti-microbial peptides expression in Malpighian tubules of Drosophila melanogaster is under developmental regulation,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 8, Article ID e40714, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. N. Silverman and T. Maniatis, “NF-κB signaling pathways in mammalian and insect innate immunity,” Genes & Development, vol. 15, no. 18, pp. 2321–2342, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. T. Tanji and Y. T. Ip, “Regulators of the Toll and Imd pathways in the Drosophila innate immune response,” Trends in Immunology, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 193–198, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. D. Ferrandon, A. C. Jung, M.-C. Criqui et al., “A drosomycin-GFP reporter transgene reveals a local immune response in Drosophila that is not dependent on the Toll pathway,” EMBO Journal, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1217–1227, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. J. A. Hoffmann, “The immune response of Drosophila,” Nature, vol. 426, no. 6962, pp. 33–38, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. T. Kaneko, T. Yano, K. Aggarwal et al., “PGRP-LC and PGRP-LE have essential yet distinct functions in the Drosophila immune response to monomeric DAP-type peptidoglycan,” Nature Immunology, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 715–723, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. C. Neyen, M. Poidevin, A. Roussel, and B. Lemaitre, “Tissue- and ligand-specific sensing of gram-negative infection in Drosophila by PGRP-LC isoforms and PGRP-LE,” The Journal of Immunology, vol. 189, no. 4, pp. 1886–1897, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. J. D. Molkentin, J. R. Lu, C. L. Antos et al., “A calcineurin-dependent transcriptional pathway for cardiac hypertrophy,” Cell, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 215–228, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. S. D. Wright, “Toll, a new piece in the puzzle of innate immunity,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 189, no. 4, pp. 605–609, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. D. Ferrandon, J.-L. Imler, C. Hetru, and J. A. Hoffmann, “The Drosophila systemic immune response: sensing and signalling during bacterial and fungal infections,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 862–874, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. N. K. Gautam, P. Verma, and M. G. Tapadia, “Ecdysone regulates morphogenesis and function of Malpighian tubules in Drosophila melanogaster through EcR-B2 isoform,” Developmental Biology, vol. 398, no. 2, pp. 163–176, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. F. Rus, T. Flatt, M. Tong et al., “Ecdysone triggered PGRP-LC expression controls Drosophila innate immunity,” EMBO Journal, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1626–1638, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. P. Verma and M. G. Tapadia, “Epithelial immune response in Drosophila Malpighian tubules: Interplay between diap2 and ion channels,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 229, no. 8, pp. 1078–1095, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. J. A. T. Dow and S. A. Davies, “The Malpighian tubule: Rapid insights from post-genomic biology,” Journal of Insect Physiology, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 365–378, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. J. Yang, C. McCart, D. J. Woods et al., “A Drosophila systems approach to xenobiotic metabolism,” Physiological Genomics, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 223–231, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. R. L. Davis, “Physiology and biochemistry of Drosophila learning mutants,” Physiological Reviews, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 299–317, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. A. K. Allan, J. Du, S. A. Davies, and J. A. T. Dow, “Genome-wide survey of V-ATPase genes in Drosophila reveals a conserved renal phenotype for lethal alleles,” Physiological Genomics, vol. 22, pp. 128–138, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. F. E. Karet, K. E. Finberg, R. D. Nelson et al., “Mutations in the gene encoding B1 subunit of H+-ATPase cause renal tubular acidosis with sensorineural deafness,” Nature Genetics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 84–90, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. A. Ramello, C. Vitale, and M. Marangella, “Epidemiology of nephrolithiasis,” Journal of Nephrology, vol. 13, supplement 3, pp. S45–S50, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  92. Y. Chen, H. Liu, H. Chen et al., “Ethylene glycol induces calcium oxalate crystal deposition in Malpighian tubules: a Drosophila model for nephrolithiasis/urolithiasis,” Kidney International, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 369–377, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. T. Chi, M. S. Kim, S. Lang et al., “A Drosophila model identifies a critical role for zinc in mineralization for kidney stone disease,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 5, Article ID e0124150, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. A. L. Negri, “The role of zinc in urinary stone disease,” International Urology and Nephrology, pp. 1–5, 2018, View at: Google Scholar
  95. A. N. Smith, J. Skaug, K. A. Choate et al., “Mutations in ATP6N1B, encoding a new kidney vacuolar proton pump 116-kD subunit, cause recessive distal renal tubular acidosis with preserved hearing,” Nature Genetics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 71–75, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. P. C. Harris and V. E. Torres, “Polycystic kidney disease,” Annual Review of Medicine, vol. 60, Article ID 125712, pp. 321–337, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. S. Rossetti, M. B. Consugar, A. B. Chapman et al., “Comprehensive molecular diagnostics in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 2143–2160, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. S. Rossetti, V. J. Kubly, M. B. Consugar et al., “Incompletely penetrant PKD1 alleles suggest a role for gene dosage in cyst initiation in polycystic kidney disease,” Kidney International, vol. 75, no. 8, pp. 848–855, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  99. F. Qian, F. J. Germino, Y. Cai, X. Zhang, S. Somlo, and G. G. Germino, “PKD1 interacts with PKD2 through a probable coiled-coil domain,” Nature Genetics, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 179–183, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. L. Tsiokas, E. Kim, T. Arnould, V. P. Sukhatme, and G. Walz, “Homo- and heterodimeric interactions between the gene products of PKD1 and PKD2,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 13, pp. 6965–6970, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. P. D. Wilson, “Polycystin: New aspects of structure, function, and regulation,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 834–845, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  102. C. Gamberi, D. R. Hipfner, M. Trudel, and W. D. Lubell, “Bicaudal C mutation causes myc and TOR pathway up-regulation and polycystic kidney disease-like phenotypes in Drosophila,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 13, no. 4, Article ID e1006694, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  103. D. J. Bouvrette, V. Sittaramane, J. R. Heidel, A. Chandrasekhar, and E. C. Bryda, “Knockdown of bicaudal C in zebrafish (Danio rerio) causes cystic kidneys: A nonmammalian model of polycystic kidney disease,” Comparative Medicine, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 96–106, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  104. C. Maisonneuve, I. Guilleret, P. Vick et al., “Bicaudal C, a novel regulator of Dvl signaling abutting RNA-processing bodies, controls cilia orientation and leftward flow,” Development, vol. 136, no. 17, pp. 3019–3030, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. U. Tran, L. Zakin, A. Schweickert et al., “The RNA-binding protein Bicaudal C regulates polycystin 2 in the kidney by antagonizing miR-17 activity,” Development, vol. 137, no. 7, pp. 1107–1116, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. M. R.-C. Kraus, S. Clauin, Y. Pfister et al., “Two mutations in human BICC1 resulting in wnt pathway hyperactivity associated with cystic renal dysplasia,” Human Mutation, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 86–90, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. O. Wessely and E. M. De Robertis, “The Xenopus homologue of Bicaudal-C is a localized maternal mRNA that can induce endoderm formation,” Development, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 2053–2062, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  108. O. Wessely, U. Tran, L. Zakin, and E. M. De Robertis, “Identification and expression of the mammalian homologue of Bicaudal-C,” Mechanisms of Development, vol. 101, no. 1-2, pp. 267–270, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. C. Gamberi and P. Lasko, “The Bic-C family of developmental translational regulators,” Comparative and Functional Genomics, vol. 2012, Article ID 141386, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  110. E. E. Stagner, D. J. Bouvrette, J. Cheng, and E. C. Bryda, “The polycystic kidney disease-related proteins Bicc1 and SamCystin interact,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 383, no. 1, pp. 16–21, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. J. Mohler and E. F. Wieschaus, “Bicaudal mutations of Drosophila melanogaster: alteration of blastoderm cell fate,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology, vol. 50, pp. 105–111, 1985. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. I. A. Drummond, “Polycystins, focal adhesions and extracellular matrix interactions,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Basis of Disease, vol. 1812, no. 10, pp. 1322–1326, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. H. Happé, E. de Heer, and D. J. M. Peters, “Polycystic kidney disease: the complexity of planar cell polarity and signaling during tissue regeneration and cyst formation,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Basis of Disease, vol. 1812, no. 10, pp. 1249–1255, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. K. Lee, L. Battini, and G. L. Gusella, “Cilium, centrosome and cell cycle regulation in polycystic kidney disease,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Basis of Disease, vol. 1812, no. 10, pp. 1263–1271, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. I. Rowe, M. Chiaravalli, V. Mannella et al., “Defective glucose metabolism in polycystic kidney disease identifies a new therapeutic strategy,” Nature Medicine, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 488–493, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. H. Happé and D. J. M. Peters, “Translational research in ADPKD: Lessons from animal models,” Nature Reviews Nephrology, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 587–601, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. H. Happé, A. M. Van Der Wal, D. C. F. Salvatori et al., “Cyst expansion and regression in a mouse model of polycystic kidney disease,” Kidney International, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 1099–1108, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. T. Arnould, E. Kim, L. Tsiokas et al., “The polycystic kidney disease 1 gene product mediates protein kinase C α-dependent and c-Jun N-terminal kinase-dependent activation of the transcription factor AP-1,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 273, no. 11, pp. 6013–6018, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. T. Yamaguchi, S. Nagao, D. P. Wallace et al., “Cyclic AMP activates B-Raf and ERK in cyst epithelial cells from autosomal-dominant polycystic kidneys,” Kidney International, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 1983–1994, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  120. H. Happé, W. N. Leonhard, A. van der Wal et al., “Toxic tubular injury in kidneys from Pkd1-deletion mice accelerates cystogenesis accompanied by dysregulated planar cell polarity and canonical Wnt signaling pathways,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 18, no. 14, pp. 2532–2542, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. A. K. Bhunia, K. Piontek, A. Boletta et al., “PKD1 induces p21waf1 and regulation of the cell cycle via direct activation of the JAK-STAT signaling pathway in a process requiring PKD2,” Cell, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 157–168, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. H. Happé, A. M. van der Wal, W. N. Leonhard et al., “Altered Hippo signalling in polycystic kidney disease,” The Journal of Pathology, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 133–142, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. T. Weimbs, “Polycystic kidney disease and renal injury repair: Common pathways, fluid flow, and the function of polycystin-1,” American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology, vol. 293, no. 5, pp. F1423–F1432, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. S. C. Parnell, B. S. Magenheimer, R. L. Maser et al., “The polycystic kidney disease-1 protein, polycystin-1, binds and activates heterotrimeric G-proteins in vitro,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 251, no. 2, pp. 625–631, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. M. Boca, G. Distefano, F. Qian, A. K. Bhunia, G. G. Germino, and A. Boletta, “Polycystin-1 induces resistance to apoptosis through the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt signaling pathway,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 637–647, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. J. M. Shillingford, N. S. Murcia, C. H. Larson et al., “The mTOR pathway is regulated by polycystin-1, and its inhibition reverses renal cystogenesis in polycystic kidney disease,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 14, pp. 5466–5471, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. C. Renken, D.-C. Fischer, G. Kundt, N. Gretz, and D. Haffner, “Inhibition of mTOR with sirolimus does not attenuate progression of liver and kidney disease in PCK rats,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 92–100, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. W. N. Leonhard, A. van der Wal, Z. Novalic et al., “Curcumin inhibits cystogenesis by simultaneous interference of multiple signaling pathways: In vivo evidence from a Pkd1-deletion model,” American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology, vol. 300, no. 5, pp. 1193–1202, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. X. Song, V. Di Giovanni, N. He et al., “Systems biology of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD): Computational identification of gene expression pathways and integrated regulatory networks,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 18, no. 13, pp. 2328–2343, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. M. Lal, X. Song, J. L. Pluznick et al., “Polycystin-1 C-terminal tail associates with β-catenin and inhibits canonical Wnt signaling,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 3105–3117, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. N. Piazzon, C. Maisonneuve, I. Guilleret, S. Rotman, and D. B. Constam, “Bicc1 links the regulation of cAMP signaling in polycystic kidneys to microRNA-induced gene silencing,” Journal of Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 398–408, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. U. Tran, L. M. Pickney, B. D. Özpolat, and O. Wessely, “Xenopus Bicaudal-C is required for the differentiation of the amphibian pronephros,” Developmental Biology, vol. 307, no. 1, pp. 152–164, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. T. A. Yakulov, T. Yasunaga, H. Ramachandran et al., “Anks3 interacts with nephronophthisis proteins and is required for normal renal development,” Kidney International, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 1191–1200, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. J. Chicoine, P. Benoit, C. Gamberi, M. Paliouras, M. Simonelig, and P. Lasko, “Bicaudal-C recruits CCR4-NOT deadenylase to target mRNAs and regulates oogenesis, cytoskeletal organization, and its own expression,” Developmental Cell, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 691–704, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. E. E. Saffman, S. Styhler, K. Rother, W. Li, S. Richard, and P. Lasko, “Premature translation of oskar in oocytes lacking the RNA-binding protein Bicaudal-C,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 4855–4862, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. M. Mahone, E. E. Saffman, and P. F. Lasko, “Localized Bicaudal-C RNA encodes a protein containing a KH domain, the RNA binding motif of FMR1,” EMBO Journal, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 2043–2055, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  137. F. S. Neuman-Silberberg and T. Schüpbach, “The Drosophila dorsoventral patterning gene gurken produces a dorsally localized RNA and encodes a TGFα-like protein,” Cell, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 165–174, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. R. P. Ray and T. Schüpbach, “Intercellular signaling and the polarization of body axes during Drosophila oogenesis,” Genes & Development, vol. 10, no. 14, pp. 1711–1723, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. J. E. Wilhelm, M. Buszczak, and S. Sayles, “Efficient protein trafficking requires trailer hitch, a component of a ribonucleoprotein complex localized to the ER in Drosophila,” Developmental Cell, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 675–685, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. J.-M. Kugler, J. Chicoine, and P. Lasko, “Bicaudal-C associates with a Trailer Hitch/Me31B complex and is required for efficient Gurken secretion,” Developmental Biology, vol. 328, no. 1, pp. 160–172, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. M. J. Snee and P. M. Macdonald, “Bicaudal C and trailer hitch have similar roles in gurken mRNA localization and cytoskeletal organization,” Developmental Biology, vol. 328, no. 2, pp. 434–444, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. Y. Fu, I. Kim, P. Lian et al., “Loss of Bicc1 impairs tubulomorphogenesis of cultured IMCD cells by disrupting E-cadherin-based cell-cell adhesion,” European Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 428–436, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. G. Distefano, M. Boca, I. Rowe et al., “Polycystin-1 regulates extracellular signal-regulated kinase-dependent phosphorylation of tuberin to control cell size through mTOR and its downstream effectors S6K and 4EBP1,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 2359–2371, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. V. H. Gattone II, R. M. Sinders, T. A. Hornberger, and A. G. Robling, “Late progression of renal pathology and cyst enlargement is reduced by rapamycin in a mouse model of nephronophthisis,” Kidney International, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 178–182, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  145. Z. Novalic, A. M. van der Wal, W. N. Leonhard et al., “Dose-dependent effects of sirolimus on mTOR signaling and polycystic kidney disease,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 842–853, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. J. M. Shillingford, K. B. Piontek, G. G. Germino, and T. Weimbs, “Rapamycin ameliorates PKD resulting from conditional inactivation of Pkd1,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 489–497, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  147. Y. Tao, J. Kim, R. W. Schrier, and C. L. Edelstein, “Rapamycin markedly slows disease progression in a rat model of polycystic kidney disease,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 46–51, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  148. P. R. Wahl, A. L. Serra, M. Le Hir, K. D. Molle, M. N. Hall, and R. P. Wüthrich, “Inhibition of mTOR with sirolimus slows disease progression in Han:SPRD rats with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD),” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 598–604, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. V. H. Gattone II, N. X. Chen, R. M. Sinders et al., “Calcimimetic inhibits late-stage cyst growth in ADPKD,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1527–1532, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. F. Hildebrandt, T. Benzing, and N. Katsanis, “Ciliopathies,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 364, no. 16, pp. 1533–1543, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  151. J. R. Pinto, J. Muller-Delp, and P. B. Chase, “Will you still need me (Ca2+, TnT, and DHPR), will you still cleave me (calpain), when I'm 64?” Aging Cell, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 202–204, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 Cassandra Millet-Boureima et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

2015 Views | 441 Downloads | 11 Citations
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.