Untitled

Abstract

Background: Many properties of organisms show great robustness against genetic and environmental perturbations. The terms canalization and developmental stability were originally proposed to describe the ability of an organism to resist perturbations and to produce a predictable target phenotype regardless of random developmental noise. However, the extent to which canalization and developmental stability are controlled by the same set of genes and share underlying regulatory mechanisms is largely unresolved.

A Single Basis for Developmental Buffering of Drosophila Wing Shape

“…A similar correspondence of patterns of shape integration for individual variation and FA has been found previously in the wings of Drosophila melanogaster [17], interspecific hybrids of two Drosophila species [40], tsetse flies [16], and bumble bees [41]. In contrast, two studies in Drosophila subobscura found considerable differences [22], [42]. Just as for insect wings, a range of different results was also found for mammals.…”

“…Even when more complex genetic models are used, the covariance structure among individuals will depend on the particular mix of genotypes, and may not reflect the inherent patterns of canalization. This reasoning can explain the closer resemblance of the patterns of FA to those of environmental rather than of genetic variation that has been found in empirical studies that specifically examined this effect [3], [22], [46]. Likewise, phenotypic plasticity in response to environmental differences, such as different trophic morphs [19], may introduce heterogeneity of covariance patterns that are unrelated to other patterns of variation.…”

“…Some studies have indicated that the amounts of individual variation and fluctuating asymmetry (FA) are correlated among genotypes [13], whereas others found no such association [14] and some studies reported differences according to traits [15]. Likewise, the studies comparing the multivariate patterns of shape variation have produced a range of results from strong congruence [16]–[18] to more or less complete independence [10], [19], [20], whereas other studies produced intermediate or mixed results [21], [22]. Many of these studies used population samples without controlling for genetic variation and with little replication, if any, and therefore these results should be interpreted with some caution.…”

Fluctuating Asymmetry: Methods, Theory, and Applications

“…Other research supports the hypothesis that environmental canalization and developmental stability share underlying regulatory mechanisms, but environmental and genetic canalization do not [175]. Moreover, fluctuating asymmetry and phenodeviants in Drosophila bipectinata share a common buffering system [176].…”

Genetic constraints for thermal coadaptation in Drosophila subobscura

“…Following Santos et al [58] the experimental flies were obtained from 54 crosses, which will be referred to as inbred (isogenic:${\text{O}}_j^{\text{1}}\times {\text{O}}_j^{\text{1}},{\text{O}}_j^{\text{2}}\times {\text{O}}_j^{\text{2}},\mathrm{...},{\text{O}}_j^{\text{6}}\times {\text{O}}_j^{\text{6}}$ with 18 crosses in total), or as outbred including both structural homokaryotypes (${\text{O}}_j^{\text{1}}\times {\text{O}}_j^{\text{2}},{\text{O}}_j^{\text{2}}\times {\text{O}}_j^{\text{3}},\mathrm{...},{\text{O}}_j^{\text{6}}\times {\text{O}}_j^{\text{1}}$ with 18 cyclically permuted reciprocal crosses in total) and heterokaryotypes (${\text{O}}_j^{\text{1}}\times {\text{O}}_k^{\text{1}},{\text{O}}_j^{\text{2}}\times {\text{O}}_k^{\text{2}},\mathrm{...},{\text{O}}_j^{\text{6}}\times {\text{O}}_k^{\text{6}}$; j ≠ k ; with 18 reciprocal crosses in total). Two developmental temperatures were used in the experiment to study potentially important effects of phenotypic plasticity: 18°C and 22°C.…”