Since scav-5 and scav-6 are paralogs of scav-4, we analysed their functions in lipid accumulation using scav-5(ok1606) deletion mutants and scav-6 knockout alleles generated in this study through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing (Figure 4B). We found that when fed with JUb74, both scav-5(-) and scav-6(-) mutants had moderately reduced LD sizes, but not to the extent of scav-4(-) mutants (Figure 4E). Previous promoter reporter studies showed that scav-5 and scav-6 were expressed in the intestine.34 We constructed translational reporters for both genes and found weak or no signals for SCAV-5::TagRFP possibly due to low protein levels. The SCAV-6::TagRFP fusion protein was expressed in the intestine and was localized to the apical membrane (Figure 4C). From the fluorescent intensity, the scav-6 expression appeared to be weaker than the scav-4 expression. Moreover, scav-4(-) scav-6(-) double mutants had the same LD diameter as scav-4(-) single mutants (Figure 4F). The above results suggested that SCAV-4 may play a more significant role than the other two paralogs in intestinal lipid uptake.
I'm surprised that the scav-5 and scav-6 paralogs were both able to reduce the large LD phenotype to the same extent as scav-4 (there doesn't appear to be significant difference between the mutants). To me this suggests either they each contribute a third of the BCFA uptake, or that they operate together to internalize BCFAs. The scav-4;scav-6 double mutant suggests the first idea isn't correct as you don't see a stronger effect there. Do you think its possible these transporters are working as a complex? I would be interested to see if you can rescue each of these mutants with scav-4 expression, or if rescue requires all receptors to be present.