Literature DB >> 17976182

Internal and external constraints in the evolution of morphological allometries in a butterfly.

W Anthony Frankino1, Bas J Zwaan, David L Stern, Paul M Brakefield.   

Abstract

Much diversity in animal morphology results from variation in the relative size of morphological traits. The scaling relationships, or allometries, that describe relative trait size can vary greatly in both intercept and slope among species or other animal groups. Yet within such groups, individuals typically exhibit low variation in relative trait size. This pattern of high intra- and low intergroup variation may result from natural selection for particular allometries, from developmental constraints restricting differential growth among traits, or both. Here we explore the relative roles of short-term developmental constraints and natural selection in the evolution of the intercept of the allometry between the forewing and hindwing of a butterfly. First, despite a strong genetic correlation between these two traits, we show that artificial selection perpendicular to the forewing-hindwing scaling relationship results in rapid evolution of the allometry intercept. This demonstrates an absence of developmental constraints limiting intercept evolution for this scaling relationship. Mating experiments in a natural environment revealed strong stabilizing selection favoring males with the wild-type allometry intercept over those with derived intercepts. Our results demonstrate that evolution of this component of the forewing-hindwing allometry is not limited by developmental constraints in the short term and that natural selection on allometry intercepts can be powerful.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17976182      PMCID: PMC3198855          DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00249.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  42 in total

1.  Developmental interactions and the constituents of quantitative variation.

Authors:  J B Wolf; W A Frankino; A F Agrawal; E D Brodie; A J Moore
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 2.  The development and evolution of exaggerated morphologies in insects.

Authors:  D J Emlen; H F Nijhout
Journal:  Annu Rev Entomol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 19.686

3.  Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eye-span allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae).

Authors:  R H Baker; G S Wilkinson
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  Developmental constraints versus flexibility in morphological evolution.

Authors:  Patricia Beldade; Kees Koops; Paul M Brakefield
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-04-25       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  A general population genetic theory for the evolution of developmental interactions.

Authors:  Sean H Rice
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-11-18       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Captivity masks inbreeding effects on male mating success in butterflies.

Authors:  Mathieu Joron; Paul M Brakefield
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-07-10       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 7.  The interaction between developmental bias and natural selection: from centipede segments to a general hypothesis.

Authors:  W Arthur
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.821

8.  Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes?

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.844

9.  Evolvability and genetic constraint in Dalechampia blossoms: genetic correlations and conditional evolvability.

Authors:  Thomas F Hansen; W Scott Armbruster; Matthew L Carlson; Christophe PElabon
Journal:  J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol       Date:  2003-04-15       Impact factor: 2.656

Review 10.  The developmental basis for allometry in insects.

Authors:  D L Stern; D J Emlen
Journal:  Development       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 6.868

View more
  9 in total

1.  Complex constraints on allometry revealed by artificial selection on the wing of Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Geir H Bolstad; Jason A Cassara; Eladio Márquez; Thomas F Hansen; Kim van der Linde; David Houle; Christophe Pélabon
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The beak of the other finch: coevolution of genetic covariance structure and developmental modularity during adaptive evolution.

Authors:  Alexander V Badyaev
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2010-04-12       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Antagonistic selection and pleiotropy constrain the evolution of plant chemical defenses.

Authors:  Rose A Keith; Thomas Mitchell-Olds
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  Allometric Trajectories and "Stress": A Quantitative Approach.

Authors:  Tommaso Anfodillo; Giai Petit; Frank Sterck; Silvia Lechthaler; Mark E Olson
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 5.753

5.  Conservative whole-organ scaling contrasts with highly labile suborgan scaling differences among compound eyes of closely related Formica ants.

Authors:  Craig D Perl; Sergio Rossoni; Jeremy E Niven
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 2.912

Review 6.  Individual Cryptic Scaling Relationships and the Evolution of Animal Form.

Authors:  W Anthony Frankino; Eric Bakota; Ian Dworkin; Gerald S Wilkinson; Jason B Wolf; Alexander W Shingleton
Journal:  Integr Comp Biol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.326

7.  Controlling for body size leads to inferential biases in the biological sciences.

Authors:  Björn Rogell; Damian K Dowling; Arild Husby
Journal:  Evol Lett       Date:  2019-12-19

8.  Impacts of genetic correlation on the independent evolution of body mass and skeletal size in mammals.

Authors:  Marta Marchini; Leah M Sparrow; Miranda N Cosman; Alexandra Dowhanik; Carsten B Krueger; Benedikt Hallgrimsson; Campbell Rolian
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 3.260

9.  Fitness consequences of artificial selection on relative male genital size.

Authors:  Isobel Booksmythe; Megan L Head; J Scott Keogh; Michael D Jennions
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 14.919

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.