Literature DB >> 31198948

Why does allometry evolve so slowly?

David Houle1, Luke T Jones1, Ryan Fortune1, Jacqueline L Sztepanacz1.   

Abstract

Morphological allometry is striking due to its evolutionary conservatism, making it an example of a certain sort of evolutionary stasis. Organisms that vary in size, whether for developmental, environmental, or evolutionary reasons, adopt shapes that are predictable from that size alone. There are two major hypotheses to explain this. It may be that natural selection strongly favors each allometric pattern, or that organisms lack the development and genetic capacity to produce variant shapes for selection to act on. Using a high-throughput system for measuring the size and shape of Drosophila wings, we documented an allometric pattern that has been virtually unchanged for 40 million years. We performed an artificial selection experiment on the static allometric slope within one species. In just 26 generations, we were able to increase the slope from 1.1 to 1.4, and decrease it to 0.8. Once artificial selection was suspended, the slope rapidly evolved back to a value near the initial static slope. This result decisively rules out the hypothesis that allometry is preserved due to a lack of genetic variation, and provides evidence that natural selection acts to maintain allometric relationships. On the other hand, it seems implausible that selection on allometry in the wing alone could be sufficiently strong to maintain static allometries over millions of years. This suggests that a potential explanation for stasis is selection on a potentially large number of pleiotropic effects. This seems likely in the case of allometry, as the sizes of all parts of the body may be altered when the allometric slope of one body part is changed. Unfortunately, hypotheses about pleiotropy have been very difficult to test. We lay out an approach to begin the systematic study of pleiotropic effects using genetic manipulations and high-throughput phenotyping.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31198948      PMCID: PMC6863758          DOI: 10.1093/icb/icz099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Integr Comp Biol        ISSN: 1540-7063            Impact factor:   3.326


  69 in total

1.  How small are the smallest selectable domains of form?

Authors:  K E Weber
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  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

3.  Allometric constraints and the evolution of allometry.

Authors:  Kjetil L Voje; Thomas F Hansen; Camilla K Egset; Geir H Bolstad; Christophe Pélabon
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 3.694

Review 4.  Genetical aspects of metrical growth and form in animals.

Authors:  A G Cock
Journal:  Q Rev Biol       Date:  1966-06       Impact factor: 4.875

Review 5.  The (ongoing) problem of relative growth.

Authors:  Alexander W Shingleton; William Anthony Frankino
Journal:  Curr Opin Insect Sci       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 5.186

6.  THE ORIGIN AND FUNCTION OF "BIZARRE" STRUCTURES: ANTLER SIZE AND SKULL SIZE IN THE "IRISH ELK," MEGALOCEROS GIGANTEUS.

Authors:  Stephen Jay Gould
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1974-06       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  Properties of spontaneous mutational variance and covariance for wing size and shape in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  David Houle; Janna Fierst
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  The sex-limited effects of mutations in the EGFR and TGF-β signaling pathways on shape and size sexual dimorphism and allometry in the Drosophila wing.

Authors:  Nicholas D Testa; Ian Dworkin
Journal:  Dev Genes Evol       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 0.900

9.  FOXO regulates organ-specific phenotypic plasticity in Drosophila.

Authors:  Hui Yuan Tang; Martha S B Smith-Caldas; Michael V Driscoll; Samy Salhadar; Alexander W Shingleton
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Systematic analysis of pleiotropy in C. elegans early embryogenesis.

Authors:  Lihua Zou; Sira Sriswasdi; Brian Ross; Patrycja V Missiuro; Jun Liu; Hui Ge
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2008-02-29       Impact factor: 4.475

View more
  9 in total

1.  The contribution of mutation and selection to multivariate quantitative genetic variance in an outbred population of Drosophila serrata.

Authors:  Robert J Dugand; J David Aguirre; Emma Hine; Mark W Blows; Katrina McGuigan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The growth factor BMP11 is required for the development and evolution of a male exaggerated weapon and its associated fighting behavior in a water strider.

Authors:  William Toubiana; David Armisén; Séverine Viala; Amélie Decaras; Abderrahman Khila
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 8.029

Review 3.  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

4.  Genetic Association Analysis for Relative Growths of Body Compositions and Metabolic Traits to Body Weights in Broilers.

Authors:  Ying Zhang; Hengyu Zhang; Yunfeng Zhao; Xiaojing Zhou; Jie Du; Runqing Yang
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Allometric conservatism in the evolution of bird beaks.

Authors:  Louie M K Rombaut; Elliot J R Capp; Christopher R Cooney; Emma C Hughes; Zoë K Varley; Gavin H Thomas
Journal:  Evol Lett       Date:  2021-12-27

6.  Ontogenetic drivers of morphological evolution in monitor lizards and allies (Squamata: Paleoanguimorpha), a clade with extreme body size disparity.

Authors:  Carlos J Pavón-Vázquez; Damien Esquerré; J Scott Keogh
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-02-12

7.  Evolution of static allometry and constraint on evolutionary allometry in a fossil stickleback.

Authors:  Kjetil L Voje; Michael A Bell; Yoel E Stuart
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 2.516

8.  Evolution of multivariate wing allometry in schizophoran flies (Diptera: Schizophora).

Authors:  Patrick T Rohner
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 2.411

9.  Variation in the ontogenetic allometry of horn length in bovids along a body mass continuum.

Authors:  Morgane Tidière; Jean-Michel Gaillard; Mathieu Garel; Jean-François Lemaître; Carole Toïgo; Christophe Pélabon
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-03-27       Impact factor: 2.912

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.