Development

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Jane West-Eberhard
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Adaptive Evolution ◽  
Life Histories ◽  
Environmental Influence ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Phenotypic Change ◽  
Frequency Change ◽  
Variable Environments ◽  
The One

Any comprehensive theory of adaptive evolution has to feature development. Development produces the phenotypic variation that is screened by selection. For a mutation to affect evolution, it must first affect development. In order to understand phenotypic change during evolution, one has to understand phenotypic change during development, as well as how to relate that change to selection and gene-frequency change (evolution). The evolution of the phenotype is synonymous with the evolution of development. The genotype-phenotype problem addressed by the metaphors of chapter 2 is fundamentally a problem of development. Genetic programming, the canalized epigenetic landscape, and the recipes and blueprints contained in the genes—all are metaphors for development. Development is the missing link between genotype and phenotype, a place too often occupied by metaphors in the past. The task of this chapter is to outline a concept of development that connects it to mechanisms, on the one hand, and natural selection and evolution on the other, without a potentially misleading metaphorical crutch. The portrait of development provided by developmental biology is not adequate to this task. Evolutionary developmental biology extensively treats the genomic correlates of gross morphological variation across phyla, with little or no discussion of behavior, physiology, life histories, and the kind of variation within populations that is required for natural selection to work. Some progress toward a population approach has been made in plant developmental biology (e.g., see Lawton-Rauh et al., 2000). But a strong emphasis on the genome means that environmental influence is systematically ignored. If you begin with DNA and view development as “hard-wired” (e.g., Davidson, 2000), you overlook the flexible phenotype and the causes of its variation that are the mainsprings of adaptive evolution. I begin instead with the observation that DNA activity—gene expression—is universally condition sensitive and dependent upon materials from the environment. This implies connections between a DNA-centered approach and conventional insights about adaptive evolution in variable environments. The genome affects development at nearly every turn, so genes obviously play an important role in any theory of development and evolution.

Ewolucja. Twórcza moc selekcji

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerzy Dzik
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Cultural Evolution ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Homeotic Genes ◽  
Time Dimension ◽  
Geological Time ◽  
Theory Of Evolution

An instructive introduction to the theory of evolution and its applications in biology, physics, chemistry, geology and humanities. The author shows that evolution is a physical process, occurring in geological time dimension, describes how the Darwin’s theory of natural selection works in immunology, neurobiology, sociology as well as in certain aspects of culture and political institutions. He also shows the effects achieved through the action of selection in different areas of biological and social life. He discusses such problems as: the ambiguity of the term “theory of evolution”, the falsifiability of evolutionary hypotheses, connection between evolution and thermodynamics, the concept of reductionism, methodological background of phylogenetics, cladistics, evolutionary developmental biology and homeotic genes, as well as the cumulative nature of social and cultural evolution.

scholarly journals Beyond the Adaptationist Legacy: Updating Our Teaching to Include a Diversity of Evolutionary Mechanisms

2016 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca M. Price ◽  
Kathryn E. Perez
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Education Research ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Processes ◽  
Evolutionary Mechanisms ◽  
Teaching Standards ◽  
Dominance Relationships ◽  
Evo Devo

A paradigm shift away from viewing evolution primarily in terms of adaptation – the “adaptationist programme” of Gould and Lewontin – began in evolutionary research more than 35 years ago, but that shift has yet to occur within evolutionary education research or within teaching standards. We review three instruments that can help education researchers and educators undertake this paradigm shift. The instruments assess how biology undergraduates understand three evolutionary processes other than natural selection: genetic drift, dominance relationships among allelic pairs, and evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). Testing with these instruments reveals that students often explain a diversity of evolutionary mechanisms incorrectly by invoking misconceptions about natural selection. We propose that increasing the emphasis on teaching evolutionary processes other than natural selection could result in a better understanding of natural selection and a better understanding of all evolutionary processes. Finally, we propose two strategies for accomplishing this goal, interleaving natural selection with other evolutionary processes and the development of bridging analogies to describe evolutionary concepts.

scholarly journals Developmental variability drives mouse molar evolution along an evolutionary line of least resistance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Hayden ◽  
Katerina Lochovska ◽  
Marie Sémon ◽  
Sabrina Renaud ◽  
Marie-Laure Delignette-Muller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Temporal Dynamics ◽  
Morphological Variability ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Lineage Tracing ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Phenotypic Change ◽  
Developmental Variation ◽  
Upper Molar ◽  
Lower Molar

AbstractDevelopmental systems may preferentially produce certain types of variation and, thereby, bias phenotypic evolution. This is a central issue in evolutionary developmental biology, albeit somewhat understudied. Here we focus on the shape of the first upper molar which shows a clear, repeated tendency for anterior elongation at different scales from within mouse populations to between species of the Mus genus. In contrast, the lower molar displays more evolutionary stability. We compared upper and lower molar development of mouse strains representative of this fine variation (DUHi: elongated molars and FVB: short molars). Using a novel quantitative approach to examine small-scale developmental variation, we identified temporal, spatial and functional differences in tooth signaling centers between the two strains, likely due to different tuning of the activation-inhibition mechanisms ruling signaling center patterning. Based on the spatio-temporal dynamics of signaling centers and their lineage tracing, we show an intrinsic difference in the fate of signaling centers between lower and upper jaw of both strains. This can explain why variations in activation-inhibition parameters between strains are turned into anterior elongation in the upper molar only. Finally, although the “elongated” DUHi strain was inbred, first molar elongation was variable in adults, and we found high levels of intra-strain developmental variation in upper molar development. This is consistent with the inherent developmental instability of the upper molar system enabling the morphological variability of the tooth phenotype.In conclusion, we have uncovered developmental properties that underlie the molar’s capacity for repeated phenotypic change, or said differently, that underlie a “line of least resistance”. By focusing on the developmental basis of fine phenotypic variation, our study also challenges some common assumptions and practices in developmental and evolutionary developmental biology.

GENETIC ANALYSIS OF NATURAL POPULATIONS OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER IN JAPAN. IV. NATURAL SELECTION ON THE INDUCIBILITY, BUT NOT ON THE STRUCTURAL GENES, OF AMYLASE LOCI

Genetics ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 108 (4) ◽  
pp. 879-896
Author(s):  
Yoshinori Matsuo ◽  
Tsuneyuki Yamazaki
Keyword(s):  
Drosophila Melanogaster ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Specific Activity ◽  
Natural Populations ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Developmental Time ◽  
Frequency Change ◽  
Inducing Factors ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
The One

ABSTRACT To test the validity of previous results the inducibility of amylase as well as other biochemical parameters was measured using 45 homozygous strains of Drosophila melanogaster from Akayu, Japan. Only the inducibility (but not protein contents or specific activity of the enzyme) was highly correlated with productivity measured using a starch food regime (rp = 0.41, P < 0.005, rg = 0.73 ± 0.21). Inducibility was also negatively correlated with developmental time using starch food; namely, the one with high inducibility developed the fastest. Population cage experiments using 1600 genomes from the same natural population showed that the inducibility responded positively to natural selection (1.6-fold increase in inducibility in cages using starch food relative to those using normal food), but little frequency change of allozymes was observed. All of these results were consistent and indicated that polymorphisms of inducing factors or regulatory genes were major determinants of fitness differences in a particular environment and may be the genetic materials responsible for the adaptive evolution of organisms, at least in amylase loci.

Ecological evolutionary developmental biology in dialogue with agroecology: The Milpa as model system

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (14) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Mariana Benitez
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Model System ◽  
The Other ◽  
Agricultural Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Large Effort ◽  
The One ◽  
Evo Devo

The fields of agroecology and ecological evolutionary developmental biology  (eco-evo-devo) have been performing somewhat parallel efforts of synthesis. On the one hand, agroecology has incorporated knowledge from different disciplinary sources, among which are of course ecology, agronomy and, in a  less extent, other scientific disciplines. It has also embraced local and traditional agricultural knowledge. On the other hand, during the last decades a large effort has aimed to integrate diverse theories, evidence and tools from ecology, developmental and evolutionary biology in what has been called eco-evo-devo.

scholarly journals Getting to Evo-Devo: Concepts and Challenges for Students Learning Evolutionary Developmental Biology

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Hiatt ◽  
Gregory K. Davis ◽  
Caleb Trujillo ◽  
Mark Terry ◽  
Donald P. French ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Molecular Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Undergraduate Biology ◽  
Integrative Framework ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
Evo Devo ◽  
Evolutionary And Developmental Biology ◽  
Conceptual Difficulties

To examine how well biology majors have achieved the necessary foundation in evolution, numerous studies have examined how students learn natural selection. However, no studies to date have examined how students learn developmental aspects of evolution (evo-devo). Although evo-devo plays an increasing role in undergraduate biology curricula, we find that instruction often addresses development cursorily, with most of the treatment embedded within instruction on evolution. Based on results of surveys and interviews with students, we suggest that teaching core concepts (CCs) within a framework that integrates supporting concepts (SCs) from both evolutionary and developmental biology can improve evo-devo instruction. We articulate CCs, SCs, and foundational concepts (FCs) that provide an integrative framework to help students master evo-devo concepts and to help educators address specific conceptual difficulties their students have with evo-devo. We then identify the difficulties that undergraduates have with these concepts. Most of these difficulties are of two types: those that are ubiquitous among students in all areas of biology and those that stem from an inadequate understanding of FCs from developmental, cell, and molecular biology.

scholarly journals How Weird is The Worm? Evolution of the Developmental Gene Toolkit in Caenorhabditis elegans

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily A. Baker ◽  
Alison Woollard
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Comparative Genomics ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Genomic Variation ◽  
Developmental Gene ◽  
Animal Kingdom ◽  
Animal Development ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Fruitful Research

Comparative developmental biology and comparative genomics are the cornerstones of evolutionary developmental biology. Decades of fruitful research using nematodes have produced detailed accounts of the developmental and genomic variation in the nematode phylum. Evolutionary developmental biologists are now utilising these data as a tool with which to interrogate the evolutionary basis for the similarities and differences observed in Nematoda. Nematodes have often seemed atypical compared to the rest of the animal kingdom—from their totally lineage-dependent mode of embryogenesis to their abandonment of key toolkit genes usually deployed by bilaterians for proper development—worms are notorious rule breakers of the bilaterian handbook. However, exploring the nature of these deviations is providing answers to some of the biggest questions about the evolution of animal development. For example, why is the evolvability of each embryonic stage not the same? Why can evolution sometimes tolerate the loss of genes involved in key developmental events? Lastly, why does natural selection act to radically diverge toolkit genes in number and sequence in certain taxa? In answering these questions, insight is not only being provided about the evolution of nematodes, but of all metazoans.

Evo-Devo and the Structure(s) of Evolutionary Theory

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan C. Love
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Mechanistic Explanation ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Adaptive Function ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
Central Location ◽  
Developmental Form ◽  
Evo Devo

Many researchers have argued that evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) constitutes a challenge to standard evolutionary theory, requiring the explicit inclusion of developmental processes that generate variation and attention to organismal form (rather than adaptive function). An analysis of these developmental-form challenges indicates that the primary concern is not the inclusion of specific content but the epistemic organization or structure of evolutionary theory. Proponents of developmental-form challenges favor moving their considerations to a more central location in evolutionary theorizing, in part because of a commitment to the value of mechanistic explanation. This chapter argues there are multiple legitimate structures for evolutionary theory, instead of a single, overarching or canonical organization, and different theory presentations can be understood as idealizations that serve different investigative and explanatory goals in evolutionary inquiry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document