Response to comment on 'A conserved strategy for inducing appendage regeneration in moon jellyfish, Drosophila, and mice'

Yutian Li; Anish A Sarma; Iris T Lee; Fayth Hui Tan; Michael J Abrams; Zevin J Condiotte; Martin Heithe; Misha Raffiee; John O Dabiri; David A Gold; Lea Goentoro

doi:10.7554/eLife.85370

Response to comment on 'A conserved strategy for inducing appendage regeneration in moon jellyfish, Drosophila, and mice'

Elife. 2023 Jun 22:12:e85370. doi: 10.7554/eLife.85370.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States.
² Graduate Aerospace Laboratories and Mechanical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States.

Abstract

Previously we reported evidence that a regenerative response in the appendages of moon jellyfish, fruit flies, and mice can be promoted by nutrient modulation (Abrams et al., 2021). Sustar and Tuthill subsequently reported that they had not been able to reproduce the induced regenerative response in flies (Sustar and Tuthill, 2023). Here we discuss that differences in the amputation method, treatment concentrations, age of the animals, and stress management explain why they did not observe a regenerative response in flies. Typically, 30-50% of treated flies showed response in our assay.

Keywords: D. melanogaster; appendage; evolutionary biology; insulin; leucine; moon jellyfish; mouse; regeneration; regenerative medicine; stem cells.

MeSH terms

Animals
Drosophila*
Mice
Nutrients
Scyphozoa* / physiology

Grants and funding

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.