Developmental genetics and arthropod evolution: part I, on legs

2001 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 343-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick R. Schram ◽  
Stefan Koenemann
Author(s):  
Shane T. Ahyong

The evolution of the Crustacea following their origins in the Cambrian is outlined, with an overview of their paleontological history and global distributions into modern times. Major recent developments in arthropod evolution include recognition that Hexapoda is nested within Crustacea. Perspectives also changed during the last decades of the 20th century on the form of the crustacean ancestor, from being a long-bodied, serially homonomous form (like a remipede or cephalocarid) to a short-bodied, possibly ostracod-like form similar to Cambrian stem and crown group fossil forms. These changes have come through a shift to formal methods of phylogenetic analysis combined with the much larger volume of both morphological and molecular data now available. The most extensive current phylogenies typically recover the short-bodied Oligostraca (containing ostracods and a few minor groups) as basal crustaceans; Malacostraca and Maxillopoda are high in the tree; and Cephalocarida and Remipedia are derived forms as sister to Branchiopoda and Hexapoda, respectively. Each of these major groups can be understood through variations in tagmatization (differentiation of body segments into regions). The early crustacean fossil record (especially the Ordovician) is dominated by ostracods. Malacostracans, although having Cambrian origins, did not significantly radiate until the Mesozoic. Eumalacostraca continued to actively radiate in the Cenozoic and are now the most ubiquitous and morphologically disparate crustaceans. The processes driving crustacean evolution remain to be fully evaluated. Contingency and external factors are undoubtedly important, but most deep lineages of the Crustacea show pervasive macroevolutionary trends toward increasing tagmatization. These trends are apparently driven, meaning the formation of new body plans is not merely a contingent outcome—intrinsic factors may contribute to increasing tagmatization. Further data are required from ontogeny and developmental genetics, paleontology, and phylogenetics in order to better understand how crustaceans have evolved.


1977 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. T. M. Poulter ◽  
N. K. Honey

SUMMARYThe homothallic amoebal clones of Physarum polycephalum are of potential use in understanding the developmental genetics of this organism. Such an application requires that complementation and recombination analysis be possible between pairs of homothallic clones. This paper is a report of the formation of mixed plasmodia by pairs of homothallic amoebal clones. In order to detect such mixed plasmodia use was made of two marker genes involved in plasmodial fusion, fusA and fusB. Sporulation of a mixed plasmodium formed from two homothallic (delayed) amoebal clones yielded progeny amoebae which were genetically recombinant. It is deduced from the ratios of various genotypes in these progeny clones that the mixed plasmodium was diploid and that meiosis was associated with sporulation. There is therefore no impediment to the use of the homothallic strains for genetical analysis. The progeny amoebal clones were observed to be showing segregation for the characters homothallic (rapid) and homothallic (delayed). This observation, taken together with other related observations, suggests that the homothallic (delayed) character is produced by mutation of the homothallic (rapid) character. The rare plasmodia formed by a homothallic (delayed) amoebal clone are the result of reversion of this mutation. Amoebal clones of the homothallic (delayed) type are therefore developmental mutants unable to perform the differentiation from amoeba to plasmodium.


1995 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 1330-1333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri A. Williams ◽  
Lisa M. Nagy

Genetics ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 197 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Abdul-Wajid ◽  
Michael T. Veeman ◽  
Shota Chiba ◽  
Thomas L. Turner ◽  
William C. Smith

1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.M. Weiss ◽  
D.W. Stock ◽  
Z. Zhao

The mammalian dentition is a segmental, or periodically arranged, organ system whose components are arrayed in specific number and in regionally differentiated locations along the linear axes of the jaws. This arrangement evolved from simpler dentitions comprised of many single-cusp teeth of relatively indeterminate number. The different types of mammalian teeth have subsequently evolved as largely independent units. The experimentally documented developmental autonomy of dental primordia shows that the basic dental pattern is established early in embryogenesis. An understanding of how genetic patterning processes may work must be consistent with the different modes of development, and partially independent evolution, of the upper and lower dentition in mammals. The periodic nature of the location, number, and morphological structure of teeth suggests that processes involving the quantitative interaction of diffusible signaling factors may be involved. Several extracellular signaling molecules and their interactions have been identified that may be responsible for locating teeth along the jaws and for the formation of the incisor field. Similarly, the wavelike expression of signaling factors within developing teeth suggests that dynamic interactions among those factors may be responsible for crown patterns. These factors seem to be similar among different tooth types, but the extent to which crown differences can be explained strictly in terms of variation in the parameters of interactions among the same genes, as opposed to tooth-type-specific combinatorial codes of gene expression, is not yet known. There is evidence that combinatorial expression of intracellular transcription factors, including homeobox gene families, may establish domains within the jaws in which different tooth types are able to develop. An evolutionary perspective can be important for our understanding of dental patterning and the designing of appropriate experimental approaches, but dental patterns also raise basic unresolved questions about the nature of the evolutionary assumptions made in developmental genetics.


1986 ◽  
Vol 42 (10) ◽  
pp. 1117-1128 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. J. Epstein

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document