Sequence Heterochrony and the Evolution of Development

Smith, Kathleen K.

doi:10.1002/jmor.10014

Cited by 113 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 108 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…biology.duke.edu/kksmithlab/JPHill/ hill_collection.htm.) These approaches highlighted the utility of examining heterochronies in developmental sequences, rather than restricting the concept of heterochrony to analysis of relative changes in size and shape (Smith, 2001c(Smith, , 2002(Smith, , 2003.…”

Section: Organogenesis In the Marsupial Craniofacial Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Craniofacial development in marsupial mammals: Developmental origins of evolutionary change

Smith

2006

Developmental Dynamics

Self Cite

102

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biologists have long studied the evolutionary consequences of the differences in reproductive and life history strategies of marsupial and eutherian mammals. Over the past few decades, the impact of these strategies on the development of the marsupial embryo and neonate has received attention. In this review, the differences in development in the craniofacial region in marsupial and eutherian mammals will be discussed. The review will highlight differences at the organogenic and cellular levels, and discuss hypotheses for shifts in the expression of important regulatory genes. The major difference in the organogenic period is a whole-scale shift in the relative timing of central nervous system structures, in particular those of the forebrain, which are delayed in marsupials, relative to the structures of the oral-facial apparatus. Correlated with the delay in development of nervous system structures, the ossification of the bones of the neurocranium are delayed, while those of the face are accelerated. This study will also review work showing that the neural crest, which provides much of the cellular material to the facial skeleton and may also carry important patterning information, is notably accelerated in its development in marsupials. Potential consequences of these observations for hypotheses on constraint, evolutionary integration, and the existence of developmental modules is discussed. Finally, the implications of these results for hypotheses on the genetic modulation of craniofacial patterning are presented.

show abstract

Section: Organogenesis In the Marsupial Craniofacial Regionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Craniofacial development in marsupial mammals: Developmental origins of evolutionary change

Smith

2006

Developmental Dynamics

Self Cite

102

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is why Smith (1997) and Velhagen (1997) suggested a different approach, called sequence heterochrony, in which heterochrony is identified in the changes in the sequence order of developmental events within the ontogenetic sequence. Techniques to analyze sequence heterochronies are discussed, e.g., in Velhagen (1997), Richardson et al (2001), Smith (2001Smith ( , 2002Smith ( , 2003, Bininda-emonds et al (2002Bininda-emonds et al ( , 2007 …”

Section: Heterochrony and Phylogeneticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Systematics in the Evo-Devo era

Minelli

2015

EJT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) suggests a distinction between modular and systemic variation. in the case of modular change, the conservation of the overall structure helps recognizing affinities, while a single, fast evolving module is likely to produce a bonanza for the taxonomist, while systemic changes produce strongly deviating morphologies that cause problems in tracing homologies. Similarly, changes affecting the whole life cycle are more challenging than those limited to one stage. Developmental modularity is a precondition for heterochrony. Analyzing a matrix of morphological data for paedomorphic taxa requires special care. it is, however, possible to extract phylogenetic signal from heterochronic patterns. The taxonomist should pay attention to the intricacies of the genotype→phenotype map. When using genetic data to infer phylogeny, a comparison of gene sequences is just a first step. To bridge the gap between genes and morphology we should consider the spatial and temporal patterns of gene expression, and their regulation. Minor genetic change can have major phenotypic effects, sometimes suggesting saltational evolution. evo-devo is also relevant in respect to speciation: changes in developmental schedules are often implicated in the divergence between sympatric morphs, and a developmental modulation of 'temporal phenotypes' appears to be responsible for many cases of speciation.

show abstract

“…Many such modification are heterochronic Fthat is, they involve shifts in the relative timing of developmental events in a descendant organism compared to the timing of the same events in an ancestor (Gould 1977;Alberch et al 1979;McKinney and McNamara 1991;Zelditch 2001;McNamara and McKinney 2005). As several authors have pointed out (e.g., Fink 1982;Alberch 1995;Smith 2002), in practice almost all studies of heterochrony involve a comparative analysis among phylogenetically EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 9:1, 105 -115 (2007) related taxa, because information on the timing of developmental events in ancestors is not available. Heterochrony is considered to be a linking concept between development and evolution and, as such, it is a paradigm in the study of morphological evolution (Alberch and Blanco 1996;Poe and Wake 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterochrony, cannibalism, and the evolution of viviparity in Salamandra salamandra

Buckley

Alcobendas

Garcı́a-Parı́s

et al. 2007

Evolution and Development

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe way in which novelties that lead to macroevolutionary events originate is a major question in evolutionary biology, and one that can be addressed using the fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) as a model system. It is exceptional among amphibians in displaying intraspecific diversity of reproductive strategies. In S. salamandra, two distinct modes of reproduction co-occur: the common mode, ovoviviparity (females giving birth to many small larvae), and a phylogenetically derived reproductive strategy, viviparity (females producing only a few large, fully metamorphosed juveniles, which are nourished maternally). We examine the relationship between heterochronic modifications of the ontogeny and the evolution of the new reproductive mode in the fire salamander. The in vitro development of embryos of ovoviviparous and viviparous salamanders from fertilization to metamorphosis is compared, highlighting the key events that distinguish the two modes of reproduction. We identify the heterochronic events that, together with the intrauterine cannibalistic behavior, characterize the derived viviparous reproductive strategy. The ways in which evolutionary novelties can arise by modification of developmental programs can be studied in S. salamandra. Moreover, the variation in reproductive modes and the associated variation of sequences of development occur in neighboring, conspecific populations. Thus, S. salamandra is a unique biological system in which evolutionary developmental research questions can be addressed at the level of populations.

show abstract

Sequence Heterochrony and the Evolution of Development

Cited by 113 publications

References 108 publications

Craniofacial development in marsupial mammals: Developmental origins of evolutionary change

Craniofacial development in marsupial mammals: Developmental origins of evolutionary change

Biological Systematics in the Evo-Devo era

Heterochrony, cannibalism, and the evolution of viviparity in Salamandra salamandra

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About