Developmental variability and the limits of adaptation: Interactions with stress

Parsons, P. A.

doi:10.1007/bf02424518

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was confirmed by hsp-protein studies (Parker-Thornburg & Bonner, 1987), and Parsons (1993) concluded that available genotypes can be selected in stress conditions, thanks to the polymorphism for heat resistance. It is remarkable that, for all the examples of 'positive' results, satisfactory explanations can be given by simple interpretations in terms of individual polymorphisms or selection, instead of specific induction by the applied stress.…”

Section: Experiments With Environmental Factorssupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Induced mutations are often detected by changes in the phenotypic expression of target genes (white locus of D. melanogaster and D. simulans: Inoue & Yamamoto, 1987; yellow gene of D. melanogaster: Geyer, Green & Corces, 1988) without direct correlation with the role of these genes in the response to the stress. Aggressive factors may also affect quantitative genes, resulting in 'fitness' changes (Hoffmann & Parsons, 1991) or in variations of quantitative phenotypical traits (Parsons, 1993). In some cases, the mutations described concern genes specifically related to the kind of stress: high temperatures increase heat-shock genes transcription on Dictyostelium disco~'deum (Rosen, Sivertsen & Firtel, 1983) and Drosophila melanogaster (reviewed by Ashburner & Bonnet, 1979;Garbe & Pardue, 1986).…”

Section: Genetic Consequences Of Stress: Detection At the Organismic mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Assays of application of factors capable of modifying the hereditary characteristics in cells or organisms provide a very large field of investigations; the results constitute a patchwork from which a picture of genomic susceptibility may emerge. The effects of stresses on the genome, resulting from action of various aggressive agents with consequences on the evolution of organisms, populations and species, have been discussed in many cases to establish theories based on observations or on experimental results (Parsons, 1973(Parsons, , 1993. Stresses are supposed to induce resistance or to select the best adapted genetic combinations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Genome and stresses: Reactions against aggressions, behavior of transposable elements

Arnault

Dufournel

1994

Genetica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The action of stresses on the genome can be considered as responses of cells or organisms to external aggressions. Stress factors are of environmental origin (climatic or trophic) or of genomic nature (introduction of foreign genetic material, for example). In both cases, important perturbations can occur and modify hereditary potentialities, creating new combinations compatible with survival; such a situation may increase the variability of the genome, and allow evolutive processes to take place. The behavior of transposable elements under stress conditions is thus of particular interest, since these sequences are sources of mutations and therefore of genetic variability; they may play an important role in population adaptation. The survey of the available experimental results suggest that, although some examples of mutations and transposable elements movements induced by external factors are clearly described, environmental injuries or introduction of foreign material into a genome are not systematically followed by drastic genomic changes.

show abstract

Section: Experiments With Environmental Factorssupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Genetic Consequences Of Stress: Detection At the Organismic mentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Genome and stresses: Reactions against aggressions, behavior of transposable elements

Arnault

Dufournel

1994

Genetica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the majority of previous studies mostly asked questions concerning the differences in FA among individuals who may have varied in their health status, in phenotypical characteristics, and in heterozygosity level or who were exposed or not exposed to genetic or environmental stresses (Parsons, 1990(Parsons, , 1994Livshits and Kobyliansky, 1991;Fraser, 1994;Mitton, 1994Mitton, , 1995Smouse, 1993, 1994;Moller, 1996), the present study focused on differences in FA among the different traits of the same organ, namely the hand skeleton.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluctuating asymmetry and morphometric variation of hand bones

Livshits

Yakovenko

Kletselman

et al. 1998

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The major aim of this study was to test three hypotheses: 1) more complex traits of the hand are less prone to developmental insults and therefore show lower fluctuating asymmetry (FA) as compared with simple traits; 2) the manifestation of FA correlates with the variability of the trait (i.e., CV); and 3) FA is an organ-wide property, and therefore a concordance exists between the FA measures of different traits in hand bones. Seventy-two bilateral measurements of hand bones, were made from plain-film radiographs of 365 cadavers. A complex trait was considered as the total length of the three phalanges of a finger and their contiguous metacarpals. Simple traits were considered to be the lengths of individual bone that made up the complex trait. The following results were obtained: 1) on the average simple traits, composing the complex trait, show much higher FA than the corresponding complex trait, but this result is expected if there is no correlation (or low correlation) between FA of simple traits within the complex trait, due to random direction of right-left differences; 2) strong and highly significant correlation was observed between FA and CV of studied traits, regardless of sex and age of individuals; and 3) the majority of FA measurements of hand bones showed no correlation. However, correlations between some sets of FA traits were highly significant. They were interpreted, although not specifically tested, as the result of a tight relationship between traits related not only developmentally but also by active performance of the same function.

show abstract

“…Studies of the relationship between niche width and variability (Van Valen, 1965;Van Valen & Grant, 1970;Sabath, 1974: Slatkin Kr Lande, 1976Steiner, 1977;Beever, 1979;Smith, 1981;Lacy, 1982;Schmid, 198 k), genetic and morphological 1 ariahilit) (Nihol'skiy BL Kane\ 1972, Suchentrunk, 1993, developmental stability and variability (Tl'ayne Pf nl.. 1986;Kieser & Groenwald, 1991;Mitton, 1993;NoLak et al, 1993), function and \m-iability Pablokok, 1966), stress and variability (Burla & Taylor. 1982;Hoffnian Kr Parsons, 1991;Parsons, 1993), the maintenance of variation (Mayr. 1963;Lande, 1976) and the effect of selection on phenotypic variances (Slatkin & Landc, 1976;Bull, 1987) have contributed much to understanding the basis for variation in \ ariability in nature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Variability and size in mammals and birds

Hallgrímsson

Maiorana²

2000

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Body size, its variability, and their ecological correlates have long been important topics in evolutionary-biolog. Yet, the question of whether there is a general relationship between size and sizerelative variability has not previously been addressed. Through an analysis of body-mass and length measurements from 65 074 individuals from 35 I mammalian species, we show-that size-relative variability increases significantly with mean species body size. Analysis of mean body mass and standard deviations for 237 species of birds revealed the same pattern. We presetit three plausible alternatives explanations and eliminate several others. Of thrse, the hypothesis that the incrcase in size-relative variability with mean body mass is relatrd to the scaling of body mass components is most strongly supported. In effect, larger mammals and birds are more variable because their body mass is composed to greater relative degrw of components with higher intrinsic variability (bone, fat, and muscle). In contrast, smaller mammals and birds have lower body mass variability because they are composed to a greater relative extent of components (viscera and nervous system) in which size variation is more highly constrained by energktic and functional factors. 0 2000 Thr 1,iiiiiran Sociey of London

show abstract

Developmental variability and the limits of adaptation: Interactions with stress

Cited by 18 publications

References 62 publications

Genome and stresses: Reactions against aggressions, behavior of transposable elements

Genome and stresses: Reactions against aggressions, behavior of transposable elements

Fluctuating asymmetry and morphometric variation of hand bones

Variability and size in mammals and birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About