» Articles » PMID: 12658708

Developmental Constraints in a Comparative Framework: a Test Case Using Variations in Phalanx Number During Amniote Evolution

Overview
Specialty Biology
Date 2003 Mar 27
PMID 12658708
Citations 23
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Constraints are factors that limit evolutionary change. A subset of constraints is developmental, and acts during embryonic development. There is some uncertainty about how to define developmental constraints, and how to formulate them as testable hypotheses. Furthermore, concepts such as constraint-breaking, universal constraints, and forbidden morphologies present some conceptual difficulties. One of our aims is to clarify these issues. After briefly reviewing current classifications of constraint, we define developmental constraints as those affecting morphogenetic processes in ontogeny. They may be generative or selective, although a clear distinction cannot always be drawn. We support the idea that statements about constraints are in fact statements about the relative frequency of particular transformations (where 'transformation' indicates a change from the ancestral condition). An important consequence of this is that the same transformation may be constrained in one developmental or phylogenetic context, but evolutionarily plastic in another. In this paper, we analyse developmental constraints within a phylogenetic framework, building on similar work by previous authors. Our approach is based on the following assumptions from the literature: (1) constraints are identified when there is a discrepancy between the observed frequency of a transformation, and its expected frequency; (2) the 'expected' distribution is derived by examining the phylogenetic distribution of the transformation and its associated selection pressures. Thus, by looking for congruence between these various phylogenetic distribution patterns, we can test hypotheses about constraint. We critically examine this approach using a test case: variation in phalanx-number in the amniote limb.

Citing Articles

Regenerative loss in the animal kingdom as viewed from the mouse digit tip and heart.

Tan F, Bronner M Dev Biol. 2023; 507:44-63.

PMID: 38145727 PMC: 10922877. DOI: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2023.12.008.


Comparative embryology of Delphinapterus leucas (beluga whale), Balaena mysticetus (bowhead whale), and Stenella attenuata (pan-tropical spotted dolphin) (Cetacea: Mammalia).

Gavazzi L, Cooper L, Usip S, Suydam R, Stimmelmayr R, George J J Morphol. 2022; 284(2):e21543.

PMID: 36538588 PMC: 10107513. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.21543.


Evolutionary genetics of flipper forelimb and hindlimb loss from limb development-related genes in cetaceans.

Sun L, Rong X, Liu X, Yu Z, Zhang Q, Ren W BMC Genomics. 2022; 23(1):797.

PMID: 36460960 PMC: 9719152. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-022-09024-3.


The Hazards of Regeneration: From Morgan's Legacy to Evo-Devo.

Sinigaglia C, Alie A, Tiozzo S Methods Mol Biol. 2022; 2450:3-25.

PMID: 35359300 PMC: 9761548. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-2172-1_1.


Functional Constraints on Insect Immune System Components Govern Their Evolutionary Trajectories.

Ruzzante L, Feron R, Reijnders M, Thiebaut A, Waterhouse R Mol Biol Evol. 2021; 39(1).

PMID: 34893861 PMC: 8788225. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msab352.