Article

Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals vertebrate phylotypic period during organogenesis. Nat Commun 2:248

Laboratory for Evolutionary Morphology, RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0047, Japan.
Nature Communications (Impact Factor: 11.47). 03/2011; 2(1, article 248):248. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1248
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

One of the central issues in evolutionary developmental biology is how we can formulate the relationships between evolutionary and developmental processes. Two major models have been proposed: the 'funnel-like' model, in which the earliest embryo shows the most conserved morphological pattern, followed by diversifying later stages, and the 'hourglass' model, in which constraints are imposed to conserve organogenesis stages, which is called the phylotypic period. Here we perform a quantitative comparative transcriptome analysis of several model vertebrate embryos and show that the pharyngula stage is most conserved, whereas earlier and later stages are rather divergent. These results allow us to predict approximate developmental timetables between different species, and indicate that pharyngula embryos have the most conserved gene expression profiles, which may be the source of the basic body plan of vertebrates.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Shigeru Kuratani, Dec 31, 2014
  • Source
    • "Some recent studies argued to have provided evidence for a " molecular phylotypic stage " by showing a remarkably similar pattern of gene expression in early development of embryos from very diverse vertebrate clades (Elinson and Kezmoh, 2010). Other " molecular hourglass " models have been recently proposed for plants (Quint et al., 2012), flies (Ninova et al., 2014), and amniotes (Irie and Kuratani, 2011). The existence of a phylotypic stage (or a hourglass model of development), either molecular or phenotypic, is a major problem for voBa's law of divergence because divergence would apply only after this stage; in earlier stages development would be substantially variable and then mainly convergent (Arthur, 2002, Hazkani-Covo et al., 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We introduce a new subfield of the recently created field of Evolutionary-Developmental-Anthropology (Evo-Devo-Anth): Evolutionary-Developmental-Pathology-and-Anthropology (Evo-Devo-P'Anth). This subfield combines experimental and developmental studies of nonhuman model organisms, biological anthropology, chordate comparative anatomy and evolution, and the study of normal and pathological human development. Instead of focusing on other organisms to try to better understand human development, evolution, anatomy, and pathology, it places humans as the central case study, i.e., as truly model organism themselves. We summarize the results of our recent Evo-Devo-P'Anth studies and discuss long-standing questions in each of the broader biological fields combined in this subfield, paying special attention to the links between: (1) Human anomalies and variations, nonpentadactyly, homeotic transformations, and "nearest neighbor" vs. "find and seek" muscle-skeleton associations in limb+facial muscles vs. other head muscles; (2) Developmental constraints, the notion of "phylotypic stage," internalism vs. externalism, and the "logic of monsters" vs. "lack of homeostasis" views about human birth defects; (3) Human evolution, reversions, atavisms, paedomorphosis, and peromorphosis; (4) Scala naturae, Haeckelian recapitulation, von Baer's laws, and parallelism between phylogeny and development, here formally defined as "Phylo-Devo parallelism"; and (5) Patau, Edwards, and Down syndrome (trisomies 13, 18, 21), atavisms, apoptosis, heart malformations, and medical implications.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2015 · Developmental Dynamics
  • Source
    • "stages of development in goldfish and zebrafish, while their dorsal and anal fin developmental sequences diverged at late stages? Similar questions related to the conservation of developmental processes in the face of evolutionary morphological changes were previously asked in the context of modern and classic Evodevo (Haeckel and McCabe, 1912; von Baer, 1828; Gould, 1977; Riedl, 1978; Irie and Kuratani, 2011; Koyabu et al., 2011). Given that exoskeletons of different teleost groups have undergone evolutionary changes through selective pressure from environmental factors (Mabee et al., 2002; Nelson, 2006), it is expected that the differences observed between goldfish and zebrafish may be reflected by different teleost lineages. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Artificial selection of post-embryonic features is known to have established morphological variation in goldfish (Carassius auratus). Although previous studies have suggested that goldfish and zebrafish are almost directly comparable at the embryonic level, little is known at the post-embryonic level. Here, we categorized the post-embryonic developmental process in the wild type goldfish into eleven different stages. We also report certain differences between the post-embryonic developmental processes of goldfish and zebrafish, especially in the skeletal systems (scales and median fin skeletons), suggesting that post-embryonic development underwent evolutionary divergence in these two teleost species. Our post-embryonic staging system of wild type goldfish paves the way for careful and appropriate comparison with other teleost species. The staging system will also facilitate comparative ontogenic analyses between wild-type and mutant goldfish strains, allowing us to closely study the relationship between artificial selection and molecular developmental mechanisms in vertebrates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2015 · Developmental Dynamics
  • Source
    • "Some recent studies argued to have provided evidence for a " molecular phylotypic stage " by showing a remarkably similar pattern of gene expression in early development of embryos from very diverse vertebrate clades (Elinson and Kezmoh, 2010). Other " molecular hourglass " models have been recently proposed for plants (Quint et al., 2012), flies (Ninova et al., 2014), and amniotes (Irie and Kuratani, 2011). The existence of a phylotypic stage (or a hourglass model of development), either molecular or phenotypic, is a major problem for voBa's law of divergence because divergence would apply only after this stage; in earlier stages development would be substantially variable and then mainly convergent (Arthur, 2002, Hazkani-Covo et al., 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We introduce a new subfield of the recently created field of Evolutionary-Developmental-Anthropology (Evo-Devo-Anth): Evolutionary-Developmental-Pathology-and-Anthropology (Evo-Devo-P'Anth). This subfield combines experimental and developmental studies of non-human model organisms, biological anthropology, chordate comparative anatomy and evolution, and the study of normal and pathological human development. Instead of focusing on other organisms to try to better understand human development, evolution, anatomy and pathology, it places humans as the central case study, i.e. as truly model organism themselves. We summarize the results of our recent Evo-Devo-P'Anth studies and discuss long-standing questions in each of the broader biological fields combined in this subfield, paying special attention to the links between: 1) Human anomalies and variations, non-pentadactyly, homeotic transformations, and "nearest neighbor" vs "find and seek" muscle-skeleton associations in limb+facial muscles vs other head muscles; 2) Developmental constraints, the notion of "phylotypic stage", internalism vs externalism, and the "logic of monsters" vs "lack of homeostasis" views about human birth defects; 3) Human evolution, reversions, atavisms, paedomorphosis and peromorphosis; 4) Scala naturae, Haeckelian recapitulation, von Baer's laws, and parallelism between phylogeny and development, here formally defined as "Phylo-Devo parallelism"; and 5) Patau, Edwards, and Down, Syndrome (trisomies 13, 18, 21), atavisms, apoptosis, heart malformations and medical implications. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2015 · Developmental Dynamics
Show more