Phenotypic Evolution With and Beyond Genome Evolution

Ma, Félix

doi:10.1016/bs.ctdb.2016.04.002

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 177 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This, in turn, can make adaptive variants more easily accessible to selection, and reduces the number of regulatory changes needed to convert developmental variation to evolutionary, adaptive changes in form and function (West-Eberhard 2003;Kirschner and Gerhart 2005;Gerhart and Kirschner 2007). This line of reasoning has been interpreted by some (e.g., Félix 2016) to imply that most mutations would produce functional phenotypes-a notion at odds with empirical observations. However, facilitated variation (Gerhart and Kirschner 2007) makes no such claim, but merely posits that the interdependencies of developmental processes increase the probability of directing the effect of mutations toward functional phenotypes able to fuel adaptive response to selection more rapidly than would otherwise be the case.…”

Section: Developmental Bias Is More Than Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental Bias and Evolution: A Regulatory Network Perspective

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phenotypic variation is generated by the processes of development, with some variants arising more readily than others-a phenomenon known as "developmental bias." Developmental bias and natural selection have often been portrayed as alternative explanations, but this is a false dichotomy: developmental bias can evolve through natural selection, and bias and selection jointly influence phenotypic evolution. Here, we briefly review the evidence for developmental bias and illustrate how it is studied empirically. We describe recent theory on regulatory networks that explains why the influence of genetic and environmental perturbation on phenotypes is typically not uniform, and may even be biased toward adaptive phenotypic variation. We show how bias produced by developmental processes constitutes an evolving property able to impose direction on adaptive evolution and influence patterns of taxonomic and phenotypic diversity. Taking these considerations together, we argue that it is not sufficient to accommodate developmental bias into evolutionary theory merely as a constraint on evolutionary adaptation. The influence of natural selection in shaping developmental bias, and conversely, the influence of developmental bias in shaping subsequent opportunities for adaptation, requires mechanistic models of development to be expanded and incorporated into evolutionary theory. A regulatory network perspective on phenotypic evolution thus helps to integrate the generation of phenotypic variation with natural selection, leaving evolutionary biology better placed to explain how organisms adapt and diversify.

show abstract

Section: Developmental Bias Is More Than Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental Bias and Evolution: A Regulatory Network Perspective

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evolutionary theory dictates that natural selection is the survival of fittest in the changing environment [170,171]. The prostate ageing degeneration process provides a point of cross-talk between the testosterone-vascular-inflamm-ageing triad, amyloidosis and autophagy, within a prostate stagnation tumorigenesis microenvironment [172].…”

Section: Evolutionary Tumorigenesis Microenvironmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Etiology and Pathophysiology Genesis of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Prostate Cancer: A New Perspective

Phua

2021

Medicines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The etiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer are unknown, with ageing being the greatness risk factor. Methods: This new perspective evaluates the available interdisciplinary evidence regarding prostate ageing in terms of the cell biology of regulation and homeostasis, which could explain the timeline of evolutionary cancer biology as degenerative, inflammatory and neoplasm progressions in these multifactorial and heterogeneous prostatic diseases. Results: This prostate ageing degeneration hypothesis encompasses the testosterone-vascular-inflamm-ageing triad, along with the cell biology regulation of amyloidosis and autophagy within an evolutionary tumorigenesis microenvironment. Conclusions: An understanding of these biological processes of prostate ageing can provide potential strategies for early prevention and could contribute to maintaining quality of life for the ageing individual along with substantial medical cost savings.

show abstract

“…Understanding morphological evolution, and the underlying mechanisms generating the tremendous phenotypic diversity, is a central aim in evolutionary biology 1 . The main drivers of morphological evolution are often grouped in two categories: internal constraints related to the genetic background of an individual or species (phylogeny, development, allometry…), and external, environment-related factors (climate, habitat, competition, predation…) 2 . Adult morphology is the outcome of complex genetic pathways, leading to the development and growth of the individual 3 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incongruences between morphology and molecular phylogeny provide an insight into the diversification of the Crocidura poensis species complex

Voet

Denys

Colyn

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Untangling the factors of morphological evolution has long held a central role in the study of evolutionary biology. Extant speciose clades that have only recently diverged are ideal study subjects, as they allow the examination of rapid morphological variation in a phylogenetic context, providing insights into a clade’s evolution. Here, we focus on skull morphological variability in a widely distributed shrew species complex, the Crocidura poensis species complex. The relative effects of taxonomy, size, geography, climate and habitat on skull form were tested, as well as the presence of a phylogenetic signal. Taxonomy was the best predictor of skull size and shape, but surprisingly both size and shape exhibited no significant phylogenetic signal. This paper describes one of the few cases within a mammal clade where morphological evolution does not match the phylogeny. The second strongest predictor for shape variation was size, emphasizing that allometry can represent an easily accessed source of morphological variability within complexes of cryptic species. Taking into account species relatedness, habitat preferences, geographical distribution and differences in skull form, our results lean in favor of a parapatric speciation model within this complex of species, where divergence occurred along an ecological gradient, rather than a geographic barrier.

show abstract

Phenotypic Evolution With and Beyond Genome Evolution

Cited by 10 publications

References 177 publications

Developmental Bias and Evolution: A Regulatory Network Perspective

Developmental Bias and Evolution: A Regulatory Network Perspective

The Etiology and Pathophysiology Genesis of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Prostate Cancer: A New Perspective

Incongruences between morphology and molecular phylogeny provide an insight into the diversification of the Crocidura poensis species complex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About