Tzach Auman1, Ariel D Chipman1. 1. The Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, 91904, Jerusalem, Israel.
Abstract
Our understanding of the genetics of arthropod body plan development originally stems from work on Drosophila melanogaster from the late 1970s and onward. In Drosophila, there is a relatively detailed model for the network of gene interactions that proceeds in a sequential-hierarchical fashion to define the main features of the body plan. Over the years, we have a growing understanding of the networks involved in defining the body plan in an increasing number of arthropod species. It is now becoming possible to tease out the conserved aspects of these networks and to try to reconstruct their evolution. In this contribution, we focus on several key nodes of these networks, starting from early patterning in which the main axes are determined and the broad morphological domains of the embryo are defined, and on to later stage wherein the growth zone network is active in sequential addition of posterior segments. The pattern of conservation of networks is very patchy, with some key aspects being highly conserved in all arthropods and others being very labile. Many aspects of early axis patterning are highly conserved, as are some aspects of sequential segment generation. In contrast, regional patterning varies among different taxa, and some networks, such as the terminal patterning network, are only found in a limited range of taxa. The growth zone segmentation network is ancient and is probably plesiomorphic to all arthropods. In some insects, it has undergone significant modification to give rise to a more hardwired network that generates individual segments separately. In other insects and in most arthropods, the sequential segmentation network has undergone a significant amount of systems drift, wherein many of the genes have changed. However, it maintains a conserved underlying logic and function.
Our understanding of the genetics of arthropod body plan development originally stems from work on Drosophila melanogaster from the late 1970s and onward. In Drosophila, there is a relatively detailed model for the network of gene interactions that proceeds in a sequential-hierarchical fashion to define the main features of the body plan. Over the years, we have a growing understanding of the networks involved in defining the body plan in an increasing number of arthropod species. It is now becoming possible to tease out the conserved aspects of these networks and to try to reconstruct their evolution. In this contribution, we focus on several key nodes of these networks, starting from early patterning in which the main axes are determined and the broad morphological domains of the embryo are defined, and on to later stage wherein the growth zone network is active in sequential addition of posterior segments. The pattern of conservation of networks is very patchy, with some key aspects being highly conserved in all arthropods and others being very labile. Many aspects of early axis patterning are highly conserved, as are some aspects of sequential segment generation. In contrast, regional patterning varies among different taxa, and some networks, such as the terminal patterning network, are only found in a limited range of taxa. The growth zone segmentation network is ancient and is probably plesiomorphic to all arthropods. In some insects, it has undergone significant modification to give rise to a more hardwired network that generates individual segments separately. In other insects and in most arthropods, the sequential segmentation network has undergone a significant amount of systems drift, wherein many of the genes have changed. However, it maintains a conserved underlying logic and function.
Authors: Gregg W C Thomas; Elias Dohmen; Daniel S T Hughes; Shwetha C Murali; Monica Poelchau; Karl Glastad; Clare A Anstead; Nadia A Ayoub; Phillip Batterham; Michelle Bellair; Greta J Binford; Hsu Chao; Yolanda H Chen; Christopher Childers; Huyen Dinh; Harsha Vardhan Doddapaneni; Jian J Duan; Shannon Dugan; Lauren A Esposito; Markus Friedrich; Jessica Garb; Robin B Gasser; Michael A D Goodisman; Dawn E Gundersen-Rindal; Yi Han; Alfred M Handler; Masatsugu Hatakeyama; Lars Hering; Wayne B Hunter; Panagiotis Ioannidis; Joy C Jayaseelan; Divya Kalra; Abderrahman Khila; Pasi K Korhonen; Carol Eunmi Lee; Sandra L Lee; Yiyuan Li; Amelia R I Lindsey; Georg Mayer; Alistair P McGregor; Duane D McKenna; Bernhard Misof; Mala Munidasa; Monica Munoz-Torres; Donna M Muzny; Oliver Niehuis; Nkechinyere Osuji-Lacy; Subba R Palli; Kristen A Panfilio; Matthias Pechmann; Trent Perry; Ralph S Peters; Helen C Poynton; Nikola-Michael Prpic; Jiaxin Qu; Dorith Rotenberg; Coby Schal; Sean D Schoville; Erin D Scully; Evette Skinner; Daniel B Sloan; Richard Stouthamer; Michael R Strand; Nikolaus U Szucsich; Asela Wijeratne; Neil D Young; Eduardo E Zattara; Joshua B Benoit; Evgeny M Zdobnov; Michael E Pfrender; Kevin J Hackett; John H Werren; Kim C Worley; Richard A Gibbs; Ariel D Chipman; Robert M Waterhouse; Erich Bornberg-Bauer; Matthew W Hahn; Stephen Richards Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 13.583