Comments from curator
Phenotyping data comes from the
Supplementary information section:
-
Supplementary Table 1 (
41598_2020_71262_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx): number of dead and live flies per vial and sex, twice a day for 7 days, used for the raw dataset.
-
Supplementary Table 2 (
41598_2020_71262_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx): survival per DGRP line and sex used by the authors, reproduced exactly by the raw dataset.
For each of the 20 DGRP lines (the 10 most resistant and the 10 most susceptible to
Metarhizium anisopliae Ma549 in
Wang et al., 2017), 25 females and 25 males less than 5 days old were exposed together in one vial to
Entomophthora muscae 'Berkeley' (sporulating cadavers), in 5 replicate vials (A to E, started on 21 to 25 May 2019). Dead flies were counted twice a day for 7 days, separating the flies that sporulated (killed by
E. muscae) from the other deaths. The raw dataset has one row per vial and sex.
EmuscaeSurv_D5 is the authors' metric (PS5): the percentage of flies not killed by
E. muscae at day 5 (evening count), computed as 100 x (1 - cadavers up to day 5 / (flies alive at the end of day 7 + all cadavers)), so that flies that died without sporulating are excluded. This formula reproduces the values of Supplementary Table 2 for all 40 line/sex combinations (to the 2 decimals given). The replicate letter is kept as an obsolete phenotype (Replicate). The Canton-S control vials (Cs WF) were not uploaded.
Supplementary Table 2 names this value "Em Average % Mortality at Day 5", but it is a percentage of survival: the most resistant lines have the highest values, and the paper calls it PS5, the "percentage surviving at five days post-exposure".
Of note:
- The previous dataset of this study was a copy of Supplementary Table 2. Besides the
E. muscae survival, it held the rank of each line, the Ma549 and Pa14 LT50 of males from
Wang et al., 2017 (already in study 35), the
Wolbachia status of the lines, and their ranks for 9 phenotypes from other publications (startle response, negative geotaxis, paraquat and MSB resistance, starvation resistance, night sleep duration and bout number, lifespan, lifetime fecundity). None of them was measured in this study, so they were removed.
- In Supplementary Table 1, the "alive" formulas of vial Ral 38 (A) subtract only the deaths of each time point instead of all deaths so far, and the "alive" counts of vial Ral 737 (B) were typed in on days 5 and 6 and differ from the death counts. The authors' values, used here, are 92.59% for Ral 38 (A) females, 52.63% for Ral 737 (B) females and 16% for Ral 737 (B) males, whereas the death counts give 90.91%, 57.14% and 4.55%.
- The initial number of flies was not always 25 per sex (20 to 30, and 43 females with 7 males in vial Ral 443 (E)). Percentages are computed per vial and sex, as the authors did. A few deaths were counted as 0.5 in each sex (probably flies of unknown sex).
- Only survival at day 5 was uploaded: the full time course (Figure 1) can be recomputed from Supplementary Table 1.
