Abstract
Developmental systems are regulated by a web of interacting loci. One common and useful approach in studying the evolution of development is to focus on classes of interacting elements within these systems. Here, we use individual-based simulations to study the evolution of traits controlled by branched developmental pathways involving three loci, where one locus regulates two different traits. We examined the system under a variety of selective regimes. In the case where one branch was under stabilizing selection and the other under directional selection, we observed “developmental system drift”: the trait under stabilizing selection showed little phenotypic change even though the loci underlying that trait showed considerable evolutionary divergence. This occurs because the pleiotropic locus responds to directional selection and compensatory mutants are then favored in the pathway under stabilizing selection. Though developmental system drift may be caused by other mechanisms, it seems likely that it is accelerated by the same underlying genetic mechanism as that producing the Dobzhansky–Muller incompatibilities that lead to speciation in both linear and branched pathways. We also discuss predictions of our model for developmental system drift and how different selective regimes affect probabilities of speciation in the branched pathway system.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abouheif E (1997) Developmental genetics and homology: a hierarchical approach. Trends Ecol Evol 12:405–408
Abouheif E (1999) Establishing homology criteria for regulatory gene networks: prospects and challenges. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Wiley, Chircester, pp 207–225 (Novartis Foundation Symposium 222)
Abouheif E, Akam M, Dickinson WJ, Holland PWH, Meyer A, Patel NH, Raff RA, Roth VL, Wray GA (1997). Homology and developmental genes. Trends in Genetics 13:423–433
Barbash DA, Siino DF, Tarone AM, Roote J (2003) A rapidly evolving MYB-related protein causes species isolation in Drosophila. Proc Nat Acad Sci (USA) 100:5302–5307
Cabot EL, Davis AW, Johnson NA, Wu C-I (1994) Genetics of reproductive isolation in the Drosophila simulans clade: complex epistasis underlying hybrid sterility. Genetics 137:175–189
Charlesworth B, Lande R, Slatkin M (1982) A neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution. Evolution 36:474–498
Davidson EH (2001). Genomic regulatory systems: development and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego
Dickinson WJ (1995) Molecules and morphology: where’s the homology? Trends Genet 11:119–120
Dilda CL, MacKay TFC (2002) The genetic architecture of Drosophila sensory bristle number. Genetics 162:1655–1674
Doebley J, Stec A, Hubbard L (1997) The evolution of apical dominance in maize. Nature 386:485–488
Duboule D, Wilkins AS (1998) The evolution of ‘bricolage’. Trends Genet 14:54–59
Frank S (1999) Population and quantitative genetics of regulatory networks. J Theor Biol 197:281–284
Futuyma DJ (1998) Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA
Gerhardt J, Kirschner M (1997) Cells, Embryos, and Evolution. Blackwell Science, London
Gibson G (1996) Epistasis and pleiotropy as natural properties of transcriptional regulation. Theor Pop Biol 49:58–89
Gompel N, Carroll SB (2003) Genetic mechanisms and constraints governing the evolution of correlated traits in drosphilid flies. Nature 424:931–935
Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Haag ES, True JR (2001) Perspective: from mutants to mechanisms? Assessing the candidate gene paradigm in evolutionary biology. Evolution 55:1077–1084
Halliburton R (2004). Introduction to population genetics. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Hansen TF, Wagner GP (2001) Modeling genetic architecture: a multilinear theory of gene interaction. Theor Pop Biol 59:61–86
Johnson NA (2000) Gene interaction and the origin of species. In: Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ (eds) Epistasis and the evolutionary process. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 197–212
Johnson NA, Porter AH (2000) Rapid speciation via parallel, directional selection on regulatory genetic pathways. J of Theor Biol 205:527–542
Johnson NA, Porter AH (2001) Toward a new synthesis: population genetics and evolutionary developmental biology. Genetica 112/113:45–58
Leips J, Mackay TFC (2002) The complex genetic architecture of Drosophila lifespan. Exp Aging Res 28:361–390
Lemon B, Meiklejohn CD, Caceres M, Hartl DL (2005) Rates of divergence in gene expression profiles of primates, mice, and flies: Stabilizing selection and variability among functional categories. Evolution 59:126–137
Liu J, Mercer JM, Stam LF, Gibson GC, Zeng ZB, Laurie CC (1996) Genetic analysis of a morphological shape difference in the male genitalia of Drosophila simulans and D. mauritiana. Genetics 142:1129–1145
Ludwig MZ, Bergman C, Patel NH, Kreitman M (2000) Evidence for stabilizing selection in a eukaryotic enhancer element. Nature 403:564–567
Lynch M, Walsh JB (1998) Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
MacKay TFC (2001) The genetic architecture of quantitative traits. Annu Rev Genet 35:303–339
Mayr E (1954) Change of genetic environment and evolution. In: Huxley J, Hardy AC, Ford EB (eds) Evolution as a process. Allen and Unwin, London, pp 157–180
Mayr E (1963) Animal Species and Evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
McDonald JH, Kreitman M (1991) Adaptive protein evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila. Nature 351:652–654
Merila J, Sheldon BC, Kruuk LEB (2001) Explaining stasis: microevolutionary studies in natural populations. Genetica 112/113:199–222
Michalak P, Noor MAF (2003) Genome-wide patterns of expression in Drosophila pure-species and hybrid males. Mol Biol Evol 20:1070–1076
Michalak P, Noor MAF (2004) Association of misexpression with sterility in hybrids of Drosophila simulans and D.␣mauritiana. J Mol Evol 59:277–282
Nanney DL (1982) Genes and phenes in Tetrahymena. Bioscience 32:783–788
Orr HA (1995) The population genetics of speciation: the evolution of hybrid incompatibilities. Genetics 139:1805–1813
Orr HA (1998) Testing natural selection vs. genetic drift in phenotypic evolution using quantitative trait locus data. Genetics 149:2099–2104
Pagel P, Mewes H-W, Frishman D (2004) Conservation of protein–protein interactions – lessons from ascomycota. Trends Genet 20:72–76
Patterson C (1988) Homology in classical and molecular biology. Mol Biol Evol 5:603–625
Perez DE, Wu C-I, Johnson NA, Wu M-L (1993) Genetics of reproductive isolation in the Drosophila simulans clade: DNA marker-assisted mapping of a hybrid-male sterility gene, Odysseus (Ods). Genetics 134:261–275
Pomiankowski A, Rolf Nöthiger, Wilkins A (2004) The evolution of the Drosophila sex-determination pathway. Genetics 166:1761–1773
Porter AH, Johnson NA (2002) Speciation despite gene flow when developmental pathways evolve. Evolution 56:2103–2111
Presgraves DC, Balagopalan L, Abmayr SM, Orr HA (2003) Adaptive evolution drives the divergence of a hybrid inviability gene between two species of Drosophila. Nature 423:715–719
Ranz JM, Namgyal K, Gibson G, Hartl DL (2004) Anomalies in the expression profile of interspecific hybrids of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans. Genome Res 14:373–379
Ranz JM, Machado CA (2006) Uncovering evolutionary patterns of gene expression using microarrays. Trends Eco Evol 21:29–37
Reiland J, Noor MAF (2002) Little qualitative RNA misexpression in sterile male F1 hybrids of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. BMC Evol Biol 2:16
Rice SH (1998) The evolution of canalization and the breaking of Von Baer laws: modeling the evolution of development with epistasis. Evolution 52:647–656
Rice SH (2000) The evolution of developmental interactions: epistasis, canalization, and integration. In: Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ (eds) Epistasis and the evolutionary process. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 82–98
Romano LA, Wray GA (2003) Conservation of Endo16 expression in sea urchins despite evolutionary divergence in both cis and trans-acting components of transcriptional regulation. Development 130:4187–4199
Schartl M, Hornung U, Gutbrod H, Volff J-N, Wittbrodt J (1999) Melanoma loss-of-function mutants in Xiphophorus caused by Xmrk-oncogene deletion and gene disruption by a transposable element. Genetics 153:1385–1394
Skaer N, Simpson P (2000) Genetic analysis of bristle loss in hybrids between Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans provides evidence for divergence of cis-regulatory sequences in the achete-scute gene complex. Dev Biol 221:148–167
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1994) Biometry, 3rd edn. W. H. Freeman, New York
Stern DL (2000) Evolutionary developmental biology and the problem of variation. Evolution 54:1079–1091
Sucena E, Delon I, Jones I, Payre F, Stern DL (2003) Regulatory evolution of shavenbaby/ovo underlies multiple cases of parallelism. Nature 424:935–939
Takano TS (1998) Loss of notum macrochaetae as an interspecific hybrid anomaly between Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Genetics 149:1435–1450
Takano-Shimizu T (2000) Genetic screens for factors involved in the notum bristle loss of interspecific hybrids between Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Genetics 156:269–282
Ting C-T, Tsaur S-C, Wu M-L, Wu C-I (1998). A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282:1501–1504
True JR, Haag ES (2001). Developmental system drift and flexibility in evolutionary trajectories. Evol Develop 3:109–119
Wade MJ, Johnson NA, Wardle G (1994) Analysis of autosomal polygenic variation for the expression of Haldane’s rule in flour beetles. Genetics 138:791–799
Wade MJ, Johnson NA, Jones R, Siguel V, McNaughton M (1997) Genetic variation segregating in natural populations of Tribolium castaneum affecting traits observed in hybrids with T. freemani. Genetics 147:1235–1247
Wade MJ, Johnson NA, Toquenaga Y (1999) Temperature effects and genotype by environment interactions (GEI) in hybrids: Haldane’s rule in flour beetles. Evolution 53:855–865
Wagner GP (1989) The biological homology concept. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:125–140
Wagner GP (1996) Does evolutionary plasticity evolve? Evolution 50:1008–1023
Wagner GP (1999) A research programme for testing the biological homology concept. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Wiley, Chircester, pp 125–140 (Novartis Foundation Symposium 222)
Wilkins AS (2002) The evolution of developmental pathways. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
Wolf JB, Framkino WA, Agrawal AF, Brodie ED III, Moore AJ (2001) Developmental interactions and the constituents of quantitative variation. Evolution 55:232–245
Wray GA (1999) Evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologous structures. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Wiley, Chircester, pp 189–206 (Novartis Foundation Symposium 222)
Wray GA, Hahn MW, Abouheif E, Balhouf JP, Pizer M, Rockman MV, Romano LA (2003) The evolution of transcriptional regulation in eukaryotes. Mol Biol Evol 20:1377–1419
Acknowledgements
We thank Eric Haag, Rich Kliman, and Mohamed Noor for many stimulating discussions. We also thank the above, Jody Hey and John True for comments on drafts of␣this manuscript. This work was supported by NSF DEB 0075451.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1: Constraint and Speciation
Appendix 1: Constraint and Speciation
When both branches are under directional selection, there is a possibility that the selection responses on the two branches may interfere with each other and thus constrain the ways by which the populations respond to selection. There are four ways by which a population can respond to selection for looser binding at both branches of the pathway. Where promoter j and product j represent the allelic values of promoter and product sites at locus j, looser binding evolves in both branches by any of the following routes:
-
(1)
productA > promoterB and productA > promoterC, with probability a;
-
(2)
productA > promoterB and productA < promoterC, with probability b;
-
(3)
productA < promoterB and productA > promoterC, with probability c;
-
(4)
productA < promoterB and productA < promoterC, with probability d.
These routes are mutually exclusive so a + b + c + d = 1.
Reproductive isolation arises only if the two different populations take different, incompatible routes. The probability that strong reproductive isolation will not occur is thus the summation of the squared probabilities that a population will respond along a given route, Prob [high hybrid fitness] = a 2 + b 2 + c 2 + d 2. Routes 1 and 4 are symmetrical as are routes 2 and 3, so a = d and b = c.
With constraint, populations will be more likely to transverse routes 1 and 4 and less likely to transverse routes 2 and 3. Let T equal the constraint or equivalently, the correlation of the allelic values in the two pathways. Therefore,
When T = 0, the interactions are independent and a = b = c = d. When T = 1, the pathways are completely constrained to evolve together, whereby a = d = 1/2 and b = c = 0. Thus Prob [high hybrid fitness] =
.
The probability that reproductive isolation will arise is Prob [low hybrid fitness] = 1−Prob [high hybrid fitness] = (3−T 2)/4, which ranges from 1/2 to 3/4 as T ranges from 1 to 0.
T can be estimated from this equation by substituting the observed frequency \( \hat f \) of low hybrid fitness outcomes and rearranging, giving \( \hat T = \sqrt {3 - 4\hat f} \). This estimates the extent to which evolution is correlated on the two branches of the pathway.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson, N.A., Porter, A.H. Evolution of branched regulatory genetic pathways: directional selection on pleiotropic loci accelerates developmental system drift. Genetica 129, 57–70 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-006-0033-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-006-0033-2