| Literature DB >> 22339806 |
Daniel J Jackson1, Sandie M Degnan, Bernard M Degnan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inter-specific comparisons of metazoan developmental mechanisms have provided a wealth of data concerning the evolution of body form and the generation of morphological novelty. Conversely, studies of intra-specific variation in developmental programs are far fewer. Variation in the rate of development may be an advantage to the many marine invertebrates that posses a biphasic life cycle, where fitness commonly requires the recruitment of planktonically dispersing larvae to patchily distributed benthic environments.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22339806 PMCID: PMC3293765 DOI: 10.1186/1742-9994-9-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Zool ISSN: 1742-9994 Impact factor: 3.172
Figure 1Variation in the rate of third cleavage revealed by nuclear staining. (A - F) Propidium iodide staining of early H. asinina embryos allowed the number of discrete nuclei to be accurately determined. All views are lateral except the inset in (B) which is from the animal pole. (A) A four-cell embryo with two distinct nuclei in the focal plane (four nuclei in total). (B) A morphologically similar embryo to that shown in (A) with four nuclei in the focal plane. When the same embryo is viewed from the animal pole (inset) eight nuclei are visible. Embryos shown in (A) and (B) are of the same chronological age. (C) Following cytokinesis, eight distinct cells can be seen with four of the eight nuclei visible in this focal plane. (D-F) Bright field views of the corresponding embryos as in (A-C). (G) Embryos from three unique fertilizations were monitored at five-minute intervals for the time taken to progress from four discrete nuclei to eight discrete nuclei. Each point represents a minimum of 20 observations
Figure 2Variation in the age at hatching from the vitelline envelope. The age at which larvae derived from a single and synchronous fertilisation event hatched from the vitelline envelope was monitored in 15 minute intervals. Six replicates of 20 larvae from this fertilisation were monitored. Error bars are one standard deviation of the mean
Figure 3Variation in rates of larval shell deposition between larvae of the same age (10 hpf) as revealed by DW986191]. (A) An SEM image of a H. asinina trochophore reveals the position of the shell field (sf). (B - D) Representative variation in the spatial expression of Has-Ubfm
Proportion (% ± SD) of metamorphosed H.asinina following induction by the crustose coralline algae Mastophora pacifica as a function of age
| Hours after induction | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age at induction (hours) | 12 | 24 | 36 | 48 | 60 |
| 0.0 ± 0 | 0.0 ± 0 | 13.9 ± 22 | 58.4 ± 15 | 82.5 ± 20 | |
| 0.0 ± 0 | 0.0 ± 0 | 62.9 ± 20 | 78.9 ± 15 | 92.1 ± 5 | |
| 0.0 ± 0 | 39.5 ± 24 | 64.9 ± 8 | 89.3 ± 4 | 92.9 ± 5 | |
| 0.0 ± 0 | 65.7 ± 21 | 73.8 ± 10 | 93.4 ± 8 | 95.4 ± 5 | |
| 37.1 ± 23 | 70.2 ± 13 | 88.8 ± 5 | 96.4 ± 4 | 100.0 ± 0 | |
| 57.6 ± 18 | 76.6 ± 12 | 93.5 ± 6 | 96.4 ± 3 | 98.0 ± 3 | |
| 67.4 ± 21 | 92.5 ± 6 | 95.1 ± 5 | 98.3 ± 3 | 100.0 ± 0 | |
| 76.1 ± 15 | 95.4 ± 5 | 97.0 ± 3 | 100.0 ± 0 | 100.0 ± 0 | |
| 81.3 ± 6 | 92.1 ± 4 | 97.3 ± 3 | 98.2 ± 3 | 99.2 ± 2 | |
| 83.0 ± 9 | 96.4 ± 3 | 98.4 ± 3 | 100.0 ± 0 | 100.0 ± 0 | |
Figure 4Variation in the percentage of larvae of the same age initiating metamorphosis following induction by the crustose coralline alga (CCA) . Larvae of various ages (36 - 96 hpf) were induced to metamorphose and their response, as indicated by postlarval shell growth, monitored at 12 h intervals from 12 to 60 hours after induction. Error bars are omitted for clarity of presentation. Note that the response to induction across all ages is never uniform. i.e. some larvae are able to respond to the CCA inductive cue faster than others
Estimates of inter- and intra-cohort egg volume variation in H.asinina and systematic error
| n | Mean diameter | Min/Max | Std. Error 1 | Systematic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 46 | 136.0 | 4.2 | 120.0/144.4 | 1,321,897.9 | 117,418.7 | 35.6 | ||
| 46 | 133.5 | 4.5 | 114.0/144.4 | 1,249,694.1 | 121,253.2 | 34.5 | ||
| 46 | 133.5 | 4.2 | 117.2/141.1 | 1,249,108.2 | 112,218.9 | 41,857.1 | 37.3 | |
| 25 | 140.9 | 3.6 | 132.0/146.2 | 1,466,635.5 | 112,840.8 | 31.4 | ||
| 25 | 138.9 | 2.9 | 132.0/144.8 | 1,404,027.4 | 88,846.1 | 39.9 | ||
| 25 | 138.9 | 4.2 | 129.2/148.5 | 1,406,434.3 | 126,670.2 | 35,472.4 | 28.0 | |
| 27 | 138.0 | 4.7 | 129.7/147.6 | 1,381,673.6 | 142,105.0 | 15.8 | ||
| 27 | 136.6 | 3.6 | 131.0/143.9 | 1,336,833.8 | 105,865.6 | 21.2 | ||
| 27 | 137.3 | 4.7 | 126.4/146.2 | 1,360,755.8 | 136,909.9 | 22,436.7 | 16.4 |
The standard error is the standard deviation of sample means reported in column 6 (Mean vol.)
2 The systematic error is the fraction of the standard deviation accounted for by the standard error (i.e. the variation obtained by measuring the same eggs 3 times as a proportion of the estimated variation in egg volume). This was calculated as the Std. Error (column 8) divided by the Std. Dev. (column 7) expressed as a percentage. Note that these values can only be underestimates of the total systematic error, additional sources of error will inflate these values