Literature DB >> 24913643

Evolution of morphological allometry.

Christophe Pélabon1, Cyril Firmat, Geir H Bolstad, Kjetil L Voje, David Houle, Jason Cassara, Arnaud Le Rouzic, Thomas F Hansen.   

Abstract

Morphological allometry refers to patterns of covariance between body parts resulting from variation in body size. Whether measured during growth (ontogenetic allometry), among individuals at similar developmental stage (static allometry), or among populations or species (evolutionary allometry), allometric relationships are often tight and relatively invariant. Consequently, it has been suggested that allometries have low evolvability and could constrain phenotypic evolution by forcing evolving species along fixed trajectories. Alternatively, allometric relationships may result from natural selection for functional optimization. Despite nearly a century of active research, distinguishing between these alternatives remains difficult, partly due to wide differences in the meaning assigned to the term allometry. In particular, a broad use of the term, encompassing any monotonic relationship between body parts, has become common. This usage breaks the connection to the proportional growth regulation that motivated Huxley's original narrow-sense use of allometry to refer to power-law relationships between traits. Focusing on the narrow-sense definition of allometry, we review here evidence for and against the allometry-as-a-constraint hypothesis. Although the low evolvability and the evolutionary invariance of the static allometric slope observed in some studies suggest a possible constraining effect of this parameter on phenotypic evolution, the lack of knowledge about selection on allometry prevents firm conclusions.
© 2014 New York Academy of Sciences.

Keywords:  adaptation; allometry; evolutionary constraint; growth; macroevolution; microevolution; scaling; shape; size

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24913643     DOI: 10.1111/nyas.12470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci        ISSN: 0077-8923            Impact factor:   5.691


  41 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.  Neural divergence and hybrid disruption between ecologically isolated Heliconius butterflies.

Authors:  Stephen H Montgomery; Matteo Rossi; W Owen McMillan; Richard M Merrill
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Integration and the Developmental Genetics of Allometry.

Authors:  Benedikt Hallgrímsson; David C Katz; Jose D Aponte; Jacinda R Larson; Jay Devine; Paula N Gonzalez; Nathan M Young; Charles C Roseman; Ralph S Marcucio
Journal:  Integr Comp Biol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.326

4.  Why does allometry evolve so slowly?

Authors:  David Houle; Luke T Jones; Ryan Fortune; Jacqueline L Sztepanacz
Journal:  Integr Comp Biol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.326

5.  Variation in the strength of allometry drives rates of evolution in primate brain shape.

Authors:  G Sansalone; K Allen; J A Ledogar; S Ledogar; D R Mitchell; A Profico; S Castiglione; M Melchionna; C Serio; A Mondanaro; P Raia; S Wroe
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Walk the line: 600000 years of molar evolution constrained by allometry in the fossil rodent Mimomys savini.

Authors:  Cyril Firmat; Iván Lozano-Fernández; Jordi Agustí; Geir H Bolstad; Gloria Cuenca-Bescós; Thomas F Hansen; Christophe Pélabon
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Morphological divergence in giant fossil dormice.

Authors:  Jesse J Hennekam; Roger B J Benson; Victoria L Herridge; Nathan Jeffery; Enric Torres-Roig; Josep Antoni Alcover; Philip G Cox
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Evolution of skull shape in the family Salamandridae (Amphibia: Caudata).

Authors:  Ana Ivanović; Jan W Arntzen
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 2.610

9.  Shear-sensitive adhesion enables size-independent adhesive performance in stick insects.

Authors:  David Labonte; Marie-Yon Struecker; Aleksandra V Birn-Jeffery; Walter Federle
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Condition dependence of phenotypic integration and the evolvability of genitalic traits in a neriid fly.

Authors:  Zachariah Wylde; Russell Bonduriansky
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 3.703

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.