Neo-Darwinian developmental evolution: Can we bridge the gap between pattern and process?

Current Opinion in Genetics and Development

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 502-508

  Palopoli, Michael F ^a   Patel, Nipam H ^a  

^a HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INSECTICIDE;

ADAPTATION; DEVELOPMENTAL GENETICS; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENOTYPE; LIMB DEVELOPMENT; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROMOTER REGION; REVIEW;

DARWINIA;

EID: 0030218926     PISSN: 0959437X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-437X(96)80074-8     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. 1. Lewontin RC: The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press; 1974.
2. 2. Lewis EB: A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila. Nature 1978, 276:565-570.
3. 3. Raff RA, Kaufmann TC: Embryos, Genes, and Evolution. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company; 1983.
4. 4. McGinnis W, Krumlauf R: Homeobox genes and axial patterning. Cell 1992, 68:283-302.
5. 5. Patel NH: Developmental evolution: insights from studies of insect segmentation. Science 1994, 266:581-590.
6. 6. Wang BB, Müller-Immergluck MM, Austin J, Robinson NT, Chisholm A, Kenyon C: A homeotic gene cluster patterns the anteroposterior body axis of C. elegans. Cell 1993, 74:29-42.
7. 7. Scott MP: Intimations of a creature. Cell 1994, 79:1121-1124.
8. 8. Webster PJ, Suen J, Macdonald PM: Drosophila virilis oskar transgenes direct body patterning but not pole cell formation or maintenance of mRNA localization in D. melanogaster. Development 1994, 120:2027-2037.
9. 9. Carroll SB: Homeotic genes and the evolution of arthropods and chordates. Nature 1995, 376:479-485.
10. 10. François V, Bier E: Xenopus chordin and Drosophila short gastrulation genes encode homologous proteins functioning in dorsal-ventral axis formation. Cell 1995, 80:19-20.
11. 11. Holley SA, Jackson PD, Sasai Y, Lu B, DeRobertis EM, Hoffman FM, Ferguson EL: A conserved system for dorsal-ventral patterning in insects and vertebrates involving sog and chordin. Nature 1995, 376:249-253.
12. 12. Quiring R, Walldorf U, Kloter U, Gehring WJ: Homology of the eyeless gene of Drosophila to the Small eye gene in mice and aniridia in humans. Science 1994, 265:785-789.
13. 13. Müller J, Gaunt S, Lawrence P: Function of the Polycomb protein is conserved in mice and flies. Development 1995, 121:2847-2852.
14. 14. Curtis D, Apfeld J, Lehmann R: nanos is an evolutionarily conserved organizer of anterior-posterior polarity. Development 1995, 121:1899-1910.
15. 15. Frasch M, Chen X, Lufkin T: Evolutionary-conserved enhancers direct region-specific expression of the murine Hoxa-1 and Hoxa-2 loci in both mice and Drosophila. Development 1995, 121:957-974.
16. 16. Fisher RA: The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1930.
17. 17. Dobzhansky T: Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press; 1937.
18. 18. Muller HJ: Bearings of the Drosophila work on systematics. In The New Systematics. Edited by JS Huxley. Oxford: Clarendon Press;1940:185-268.
19. 19. Patel NH, Kornberg TB, Goodman CS: Expression of engrailed during segmentation in grasshopper and crayfish. Development 1989, 107:201-212.
20. 20. Sommer R, Tautz D: Involvement of an orthologue of the Drosophila pair-rule gene hairy in segment formation of the short germ-band embryo of Tribolium (Coleoptera). Nature 1993, 381:448-450.
21. 21. Patel NH, Condron BG, Zinn K: Pair-rule expression patterns of even-skipped are found in both short-and long-germ beetles. Nature 1994, 367:429-434.
22. 22. Warren RW, Nagy L, Selegui J, Gates J, Carroll S: Evolution of homeotic gene regulation and function in flies and butterflies. Nature 1994, 372:458-461.
23. 23. Averof M, Akam M: Hox genes and the diversification of insect and crustacean body plans. Nature 1995, 376:420-423. The authors examine the expression of Hox genes in the branchiopod crustacean Artemia franciscana. The three 'trunk' genes Antp, Ubx, and Abd-A are expressed in largely overlapping domains in the thoracic region, consistent with the unvarying morphology of the thoracic segments in Artemia; in insects, however, these genes have distinct expression domains and specify distinct segment types within the thorax and abdomen. In both Artemia and insects, AbdB is expressed in the genital segments; the authors suggest that the Artemia abdomen is homologous to the highly modified and much reduced post-genital segments of the insect abdomen.
24. 24. Panganiban G, Sebring A, Nagy L, Carroll S: The development of crustacean limbs and the evolution of arthropods. Science 1995, 270:1363-1366. Using an antibody to proteins encoded by the arthropod (and vertebrate) DII genes, the authors show that this gene is expressed in the primordia of limbs from diverse arthropod taxa. Apparently common genetic mechanisms underlie the development of all arthropod limbs. In contrast to the situation in insects, the bithorax complex gene products do not repress DII expression in the Artemia thorax or abdomen.
25. 25. Burke AC, Nelson CE, Morgan BA, Tabm C: Hox genes and the evolution of vertebrate axial morphology. Development 1995, 121:333-346. The authors examine the axial expression boundaries of Hox genes in chicken, mouse, goose, and Xenopus embryos. Anterior expression boundaries are found to be shifted in concert with morphological boundaries. For example, the cervical-thoracic transition is marked consistently by the anterior expression boundary of Hoxc-6, despite the fact that the cervical-thoracic transition occurs at different axial positions in these taxa. A primary event in the evolution of axial formulae in vertebrates was apparently a change in the expression of genes in the Hox cluster.
26. 26. Cohen SM, Brönner G, Küttner F, Jürgens G, Jäckle H: Distalless encodes a homeodomain protein required for limb development in Drosophila. Nature 1989, 338:432-434.
27. 27. Cohen SM, Jürgens GO: Proximal-distal pattern formation in Drosophila: cell autonomous requirement for Distal-less gene activity in limb development. EMBO J 1989, 8:2045-2055.
28. 28. Struhl G: Genes controlling segmental specification in the Drosophila thorax. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1982, 79:7380-7384.
29. 29. Vachon G, Cohen B, Pfeifle C, McGuffin ME, Botas J, Cohen SM: Homeotic genes of the Bithorax complex repress limb development in the abdomen of the Drosophila embryo through the target gene Distal-less. Cell 1992, 71:437-450.
30. 30. Castelli-Gair J, Akam M: How the Hox gene Ultrabithorax specifies two different segments: the significance of spatial and temporal regulation within metameres. Development 1995, 121:2973-2982.
31. The authors show that, in the early Drosophila embryo, cells in both parasegment 5 and 6 respond similarly to UBX protein. The morphological differences between these parasegments can be explained by differences in the spatial and temporal pattern of Ubx expression. UBX protein represses DII expression and the formation of limb primordia before 7 hours after egg laying, which is when Ubx is expressed in the abdomen and not in the thorax. Ubx is not able to repress DII expression during later stages in development when Ubx does become expressed in the thoracic region. At these later stages, instead of simply repressing the formation of limb primordia, Ubx acts to distinguish the morphology of the second and third thoracic appendages.
32. 31. Kostic D, Capecchi MR: Targeted disruption of the murine Hoxa-4 and Hoxa-6 genes result in homeotic transformations of the vertebral column. Mech Dev 1994, 46:231-247.
33. 32. Charlesworth B: The evolutionary genetics of adaptation. In Evolutionary Innovations. Edited by MH Nitecki. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1990:47-70.
34. 33. Orr HA, Coyne JA: The genetics of adaptation: a reassessment. Am Nat 1992, 140:725-742.
35. 34. Wright S: Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 1931, 16:97-159.
36. 35. Haldane JBS: The Causes of Evolution. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1932.
37. 36. Turner JRG: Fisher's evolutionary faith and the challenge of mimicry. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 1985, 2:159-196.
38. 37. Kimura M: The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
39. 38. Hill WG: Rates of change in quantitative traits from fixation of new mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1982, 79:142-145.
40. 39. Templeton AR: Adaptation and the integration of evolutionary forces. In Perspectives on Evolution. Massachusetts: Sinauer Association; 1982:15-31.
41. 40. Lande R: The response to selection on major and minor mutations affecting a metrical trait. Heredity 1983, 50:47-65.
42. 41. Barton NH, Turelli M: Evolutionary quantitative genetics: how little do we know? Annu Rev Genet 1989, 23:337-370.
43. 42. Falconer DS (Ed): Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. London: Longman; 1981.
44. 43. Lai C, Lyman RF, Long AD, Langley CH, Mackay TFC: Naturally occurring variation in bristle number and DNA polymorphisms at the scabrous locus of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 1994, 266:1697-1702.
45. 44. Long AD, Mullaney SL, Reid LA, Fry JD, Langley CH, Mackay TFC: High resolution mapping of genetic factors affecting abdominal bristle number in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1995, 139:1273-1291. The authors selected lines for low and high bristle number over 25 generations and then used DNA markers and a multiple regression interval mapping approach to map the genetic factors responsible for the response to selection. Three X-linked and five autosomal factors with large effects on bristle number were mapped with high resolution. Sex-specific effects, pleiotropic effects on viability, and large epistatic effects were observed. All factors mapped to the approximate positions of likely candidate loci that were previously characterized by mutations with large effects on bristle number.
46. 45. Mackay TFC: The genetic basis of quantitative variation: numbers of sensory bristles of Drosophila melanogaster as a model system. Trends Genet 1995, 11:464-470.
47. 46. Mackay TFC: The nature of quantitative genetic variation revisited: lessons from Drosophila bristles. Bioessays 1996, 18:113-121.
48. 47. Campos-Ortega JA: Early neurogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. In The Development of Drosophila melanogaster, vol 2. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1993:1091-1129.
49. 48. Gibson G, Hogness DS: Effect of polymorphism in the Drosophila regulatory gene Ultrabithorax on homeotic stability. Science 1996, 271:200-203. The authors show that natural populations of Drosophila harbor polymorphisms at the Ubx gene that affect the developmental stability of the regulatory identity of the third thoracic segment. Specifically, certain Ubx alleles, which can be identified using DNA polymorphisms as markers, increase the frequency with which an environmental perturbation (exposure to ether vapor) effects a partial transformation of the third thoracic segment towards the identity of the second thoracic segment. Hence, there appears to be functionally relevant, extant genetic variation for the determination of thoracic segment identity and this variation maps to the obvious candidate gene (identified initially as a mutation of large effect during genetic screens).
50. 49. Ffrench-Constant RH, Steichen JC, Rocheleau TA, Aronstein K, Roush RT: A single-amino acid substitution in GAMMA-aminobutyric acid subtype A receptor locus is associated with cyclodiene insecticide resistance in Drosophila populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993, 90:1957-1961.
51. 50. Ffrench-Constant RH: The molecular and population genetics of cyclodiene insecticide resistance. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 1994, 24:335-345.
52. 51. McKenzie JA, Batterham P: The genetic, molecular and phenotypic consequences of selection for insecticide resistance. Trends Ecol Evol 1994, 9:166-169.
53. 52. Endler JA: Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1986.
54. 53. Akashi H: Inferring weak selection from patterns of polymorphism and divergence at 'silent' sites in Drosophila DNA. Genetics 1995, 139:1067-1076. Synonymous codon usage in many species is biased toward a subset of preferred codons, which generally code the most abundant tRNA(s) for each amino acid. Selection on synonymous DNA mutations in Drosophila is investigated here by comparing the evolutionary dynamics of preferred versus non-preferred changes in codons for numerous genes. In the D. simulans lineage, unpreferred changes are sometimes polymorphic within species but have rarely gone to fixation during evolution, confirming the action of selection at silent sites. This selection appears to have been relaxed in the D. melanogaster lineage. Synonymous DNA changes appear to be subject to extremely weak selection in Drosophila.
55. 54. Palopoli MF, Wu C-I: Genetics of hybrid male sterility between Drosophila sibling species: a complex web of epistasis is revealed in interspecific studies. Genetics 1994, 138:329-341.
56. 55. Davis AW, Wu C-I: The broom of the sorcerer's apprentice: how many genes cause reproductive isolation between sibling species? Genetics 1996, in press. In this study, approximately 10% of the euchromatic portion of the Drosophila mauritiana X chromosome was introgressed into a Drosophila simulans genetic background. Males harboring these introgressions are always sterile and suffer from hybrid incompatibilities at a minimum of four loci. As hybrid genetic analyses have increased in resolution, the number of recognized factors that reduce hybrid fitness have increased dramatically, confirming recent suggestions that even closely related species have experienced huge numbers of substitutions with functional relevance.
57. 56. Wu C-I, Palopoli MF: Genetics of postmating reproductive isolation in animals. Annu Rev Genetics 1994, 28:283-308.
58. 57. Davis AW, Roote J, Morley T, Sawamura K, Herrmann S, Ashburner M: Rescue of hybrid sterility in crosses between D. melanogaster and D. simulans. Nature 1996, 380:157-159. The authors have discovered strains of Drosophila simulans and Drosophila melanogaster that produce fertile female hybrids. Species identity for each, as well as the identity of hybrids, was confirmed by multiple criteria. By passing genes between these two species, it may be possible to bring the high resolution of D. melanogaster genetics to bear on the study of fixed species differences.