Molecular epigenesis, molecular pleiotropy, and molecular gene definitions

Burian, Richard M.

doi:10.1080/03919710412331341641

Cited by 46 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, both experimental gene knockouts or mutations as well as naturally occurring teratologies often lead to phenotypes that differ in many traits from normal populations. For work on developmental and molecular pleiotropy (see, e.g., Pyeritz 1989;Galis and Metz 2001;Burian 2004;Dudley et al 2005;He and Zhang 2006;Hallgrimsson et al 2007;Mitteroecker and Bookstein 2008;Zou et al 2008;Su et al 2009;Tyler et al 2009). …”

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Developmental Basis of Variational Modularity: Insights from Quantitative Genetics, Morphometrics, and Developmental Biology

Mitterœcker

2009

Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups of correlated characters (variational modules) often are considered to be the result of dissociated local developmental factors, i.e., of a modular genotype-phenotype map. But certain sets of pleiotropic factors can equally well induce modular phenotypic variation-no local developmental factors are necessary for a modular covariance structure. It is thus not possible to infer genetic or developmental modularity from standing variation alone. Yet, only for approximately linear genotype-phenotype maps is the induced covariance structure stable over changes of the phenotypic mean. For larger genetic and phenotypic variation, such as on a macroevolutionary level, developmental effects often are nonlinear and variational modularity remains stable only when it is realized by local dissociated developmental factors with no overlap of pleiotropic ranges. The evo-devo concept of modularity concurs only at this macroevolutionary level with the quantitative notion of variational modularity. Empirical evidence on the genetic and developmental architecture underlying phenotypic variation is inconclusive and partly subject to methodological problems. Many studies seem to indicate modularized phenotypic variation and local clusters of QTL effects, whereas other studies find support for several alternative models of modularity and report continuous distributions of QTL effects. This inconsistency partly results from the neglect of spatial relationships among the measured traits. Given the complex development of higher organisms, a combination of pleiotropic factors and more local developmental effects with a hierarchical, overlapping, and more or less continuous distribution appears most likely.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Developmental Basis of Variational Modularity: Insights from Quantitative Genetics, Morphometrics, and Developmental Biology

Mitterœcker

2009

Evol Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different philosophical accounts of how many distinct gene concepts are nowadays used in molecular biology or how to characterize them have been put forward (Burian 2004;Burian et al 1996;Falk 1986Falk , 2000Falk , 2004Keller 2000;Rheinberger 2000). Moss (2003) distinguishes two gene concepts, Griffiths and Stotz (2007) argue for there being three.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The epistemic goal of a concept: accounting for the rationality of semantic change and variation

Brigandt

2009

Synthese

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The discussion presents a framework of concepts that is intended to account for the rationality of semantic change and variation, suggesting that each scientific concept consists of three components of content: 1) reference, 2) inferential role, and 3) the epistemic goal pursued with the concept's use. I argue that in the course of history a concept can change in any of these components, and that change in the concept's inferential role and reference can be accounted for as being rational relative to the third component, the concept's epistemic goal. This framework is illustrated and defended by application to the history of the gene concept. It is explained how the molecular gene concept grew rationally out of the classical gene concept despite a change in reference, and why the use and reference of the contemporary molecular gene concept may legitimately vary from context to context. This essay presents a framework of concepts that is designed to account for the rationality of semantic change. Though many previous discussions of conceptual change have emphasized the notion of reference, I argue that an adequate account has to acknowledge several semantic properties. More precisely, I suggest that each theoretical concept consists of three THE EPISTEMIC GOAL OF A CONCEPT 2 components of content: 1) the concept's reference, 2) its inferential role, and 3) the epistemic goal pursued by the concept's use. While reference and inferential role have been recognized by previous theories of concepts, I introduce the epistemic goal pursued by a term's use as a genuine semantic property of a term as it accounts for the rationality of semantic change and variation, in particular change in a term's inferential role and reference.After the presentation of this framework and how it is intended to account for semantic change in Section 1, the remainder of the paper defends and illustrates the framework by application to a concrete case from biology: the change of the gene concept. The first part of this case study (Section 2) discusses how the molecular gene concept grew out of the classical gene concept. While the transition from classical to molecular genetics has been subject to extensive discussion, previous accounts have been less explicit about the rationality of the semantic change that occurred with the advent of the molecular gene concept. I explain why

show abstract

“…Scherrer and Jost (2007) MolecularKeller and Harel (2007) Molecular Burian (2004) In this definition two gene concepts, "gene-P (preformationist)"…”

Section: Molecularmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolving Definition of the Term “Gene”

Portin

Wilkins

2017

Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a history of the changing meanings of the term "gene," over more than a century, and a discussion of why this word, so crucial to genetics, needs redefinition today. In this account, the first two phases of 20th century genetics are designated the "classical" and the "neoclassical" periods, and the current molecular-genetic era the "modern period." While the first two stages generated increasing clarity about the nature of the gene, the present period features complexity and confusion. Initially, the term "gene" was coined to denote an abstract "unit of inheritance," to which no specific material attributes were assigned. As the classical and neoclassical periods unfolded, the term became more concrete, first as a dimensionless point on a chromosome, then as a linear segment within a chromosome, and finally as a linear segment in the DNA molecule that encodes a polypeptide chain. This last definition, from the early 1960s, remains the one employed today, but developments since the 1970s have undermined its generality. Indeed, they raise questions about both the utility of the concept of a basic "unit of inheritance" and the long implicit belief that genes are autonomous agents. Here, we review findings that have made the classic molecular definition obsolete and propose a new one based on contemporary knowledge.

show abstract

Molecular epigenesis, molecular pleiotropy, and molecular gene definitions

Cited by 46 publications

References 33 publications

The Developmental Basis of Variational Modularity: Insights from Quantitative Genetics, Morphometrics, and Developmental Biology

The Developmental Basis of Variational Modularity: Insights from Quantitative Genetics, Morphometrics, and Developmental Biology

The epistemic goal of a concept: accounting for the rationality of semantic change and variation

The Evolving Definition of the Term “Gene”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About