Molecules and the Body Plan: TheHoxGenes of Cirripedes (Crustacea)

Mouchel-Vielh, Emmanuèle; Rigolot, Catherine; Gibert, Jean‐Michel; Deutsch, Jean S.

doi:10.1006/mpev.1998.0498

Cited by 49 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(18) A zen gene was found only in the ascothoracid Ulophysema oeresundense and in the crab Carcinus maenas. (12) Its sequence is more similar to the sequence of the orthologous gene in chelicerates (19)(20)(21) and to the Hox3 gene of vertebrates than to the zen genes of insects. (22) The absence of finding a zen-like gene in other crustaceans using the same set of Hoxspecific primers might mean that the zen gene has been subjected to rapid sequence evolution in several crustacean lineages, similarly to the hexapod zen gene (G. Balavoine, personal communication).…”

Section: Setting the Stage: Diversity Of Body Plans In Crustaceamentioning

confidence: 95%

“…No exhaustive study of Hox genes has been performed in a crustacean. The most-extensive study of the repertoire of Hox genes has been made by Mouchel-Vielh et al (12) on several cirripedes and related species. These data and those of two other teams (5,13 -16) (Fig.…”

Section: Setting the Stage: Diversity Of Body Plans In Crustaceamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only a few genes homologous to the zen and ftz genes of Drosophila have been isolated. (5,12) A single one has been characterised in detail. This gene, isolated from the cirripede Sacculina carcini, was first named Diva for ''divergent Antennapedia'' because of its similarity to the Antplike subgroup of ''median'' Hox genes.…”

Section: Crustacean Hox Genes and Homeosismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hox genes and the crustacean body plan

Deutsch

Mouchel-Vielh

2003

BioEssays

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Crustacea present a variety of body plans not encountered in any other class or phylum of the Metazoa. Here we review our current knowledge on the complement and expression of the Hox genes in Crustacea, addressing questions related to the evolution of body architecture. Specifically, we discuss the molecular mechanisms underlying the homeotic transformation of legs into feeding appendages, which occurred in parallel in several branches of the crustacean evolutionary tree. A second issue that can be approached by the comparative study of Hox genes and their expression in the Crustacea bears on the homology of the abdomen. We discuss whether the so-called "abdominal" tagma of the crustaceans is homologous to the abdomen of insects. In addition, the homology of the abdomen between malacostracan and non-malacostracan crustaceans has also been questioned. We also address the question of the molecular developmental basis of the apparent lack of an abdomen in barnacles. We discuss these issues in relation to the problem of constraint versus adaptation in evolution.

show abstract

Section: Setting the Stage: Diversity Of Body Plans In Crustaceamentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Setting the Stage: Diversity Of Body Plans In Crustaceamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Crustacean Hox Genes and Homeosismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hox genes and the crustacean body plan

Deutsch

Mouchel-Vielh

2003

BioEssays

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regulatory genes are sometimes lost in conjunction with simplifications in animal body plans. For example, barnacles have lost a body region, the abdomen, and also appear to lack a Hox gene (adbA) that mediates the development of this region in other crustaceans (40). A larva that became able to survive and reproduce would no longer need the cell types or the regulatory genes that were necessary for its adult stage, and they might then be lost.…”

Section: Evolution: Collinsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating multiple alternative hypotheses for the origin of Bilateria: An analysis of 18S rRNA molecular evidence

Collins

1998

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

238

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six alternative hypotheses for the phylogenetic origin of Bilateria are evaluated by using complete 18S rRNA gene sequences for 52 taxa. These data suggest that there is little support for three of these hypotheses. Bilateria is not likely to be the sister group of Radiata or Ctenophora, nor is it likely that Bilateria gave rise to Cnidaria or Ctenophora. Instead, these data reveal a close relationship between bilaterians, placozoans, and cnidarians. From this, several inferences can be drawn. Morphological features that previously have been identified as synapomorphies of Bilateria and Ctenophora, e.g., mesoderm, more likely evolved independently in each clade. The endomesodermal muscles of bilaterians may be homologous to the endodermal muscles of cnidarians, implying that the original bilaterian mesodermal muscles were myoepithelial. Placozoans should have a gastrulation stage during development. Of the three hypotheses that cannot be falsified with the 18S rRNA data, one is most strongly supported. This hypothesis states that Bilateria and Placozoa share a more recent common ancestor than either does to Cnidaria. If true, the simplicity of placozoan body architecture is secondarily derived from a more complex ancestor. This simplification may have occurred in association with a planula-type larva becoming reproductive before metamorphosis. If this simplification took place during the common history that placozoans share with bilaterians, then placozoan genes that contain a homeobox, such as Trox2, should be explored, for they may include the gene or genes most closely related to Hox genes of bilaterians.Despite numerous speculations and analyses concerning the evolutionary relationships of the major animal clades, until recently only three distinct hypotheses have been offered concerning the phylogenetic position of Bilateria within the other basal metazoan groups (Fig. 1 A-C). Two of these hypotheses are commonly found in zoology textbooks. One view, an idea that goes back to Haeckel (1) and was championed by Hyman (2, 3), is that Bilateria is the sister group to Radiata (Cnidaria and Ctenophora). A second hypothesis, preferred by Harbison (4) and Wilmer (5), holds that Bilateria and Ctenophora share a more recent common ancestor than either does to Cnidaria. Recent cladistic studies based on morphological characters (6, 7) have supported this second view. A third alternative, which appears to have fallen out of favor, has Bilateria as a nonmonophyletic group, with both cnidarians and ctenophorans derived from flatworm ancestors (8). The strength of these hypotheses is difficult to weigh on morphological evidence alone. The diploblastic groups have disparate body plans with many derived features, only a few of which are potentially informative as to their relative phylogenetic positions. Furthermore, homoplasies are difficult to infer when dealing with such general features as mouths, mesoderm, and symmetry.Molecular sequence studies provide sets of characters that can be used to both evaluate previ...

show abstract

“…E-mail: kaufman@ bio.indiana.edu. expression patterns for the trunk genes of the crustacean A. franciscana (4), no expression patterns of the head genes are known for any crustacean group, although partial sequences have been published (5,23). Here, we describe the expression patterns of lab, pb, and Dfd in the crustacean P. scaber.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Homeotic genes and the arthropod head: Expression patterns of the labial, proboscipedia, and Deformed genes in crustaceans and insects

Abzhanov

Kaufman

1999

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACTcDNA fragments of the homologues of the Drosophila head homeotic genes labial (lab), proboscipedia (pb), and Deformed (Dfd) have been isolated from the crustacean Porcellio scaber. Because the accumulation domains of the head homeotic complex (Hox) genes had not been previously reported for crustaceans, we studied the expression patterns of these genes in P. scaber embryos by using in situ hybridization. The P. scaber lab homologue is expressed in the developing second antennal segment and its appendages. This expression domain in crustaceans and in the homologous intercalary segment of insects suggests that the lab gene specified this metamere in the last common ancestor of these two groups. The expression domain of the P. scaber pb gene is in the posterior part of the second antennal segment. This domain, in contrast to that in insects, is colinear with the domains of other head genes in P. scaber, and it differs from the insect pb gene expression domain in the posterior mouthparts, suggesting that the insect and crustacean patterns evolved independently from a broader ancestral domain similar to that found in modern chelicerates. P. scaber Dfd is expressed in the mandibular segment and paragnaths (a pair of ventral mouthpart structures associated with the stomodeum) and differs from insects, where expression is in the mandibular and maxillary segments. Thus, like pb, Dfd shows a divergent Hox gene deployment. We conclude that homologous structures of the mandibulate head display striking differences in their underlying developmental programs related to Hox gene expression.

show abstract

Molecules and the Body Plan: TheHoxGenes of Cirripedes (Crustacea)

Cited by 49 publications

References 19 publications

Hox genes and the crustacean body plan

Hox genes and the crustacean body plan

Evaluating multiple alternative hypotheses for the origin of Bilateria: An analysis of 18S rRNA molecular evidence

Homeotic genes and the arthropod head: Expression patterns of the labial, proboscipedia, and Deformed genes in crustaceans and insects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About