Homoplasy and homology: dichotomy or continuum?

Homology is the presence of the same feature in two organisms whose most recent common ancestor also possessed the feature. I discuss the bases on which we can tell that two features being compared share sufficient elements of sameness to allow them to be treated as homologous and therefore to be legitimately compared with one another in a way that informs comparative, evolutionary, and phylogenetic analysis. To do so, I discuss the relationship(s) between homology and homoplasy to conclude that we are dealing neither with a dichotomy between homoplasy as parallelism/convergence and homology as common descent nor with a dichotomy of homoplasy as the interrupted presence of the character in a lineage and homology as the continuous presence of the character. Rather, we are dealing with common descent with varying degrees of modification. Homoplasy and homology are not dichotomies but the extremes of a continuum, reflecting deep or more recent shared ancestry based on shared cellular mechanisms and processes and shared genes and gene pathways and networks. The same genes can be used to initiate the development of homoplastic and homologous structures. Consequently, structures may be lost but their developmental bases retained, providing the potential for homoplasy. It should not be surprising that similar features persist when a feature is present in the nearest common ancestor (homology). Neither should it be surprising to find that different environments or selective pressures can trigger the reappearance of similar features in organisms that do not share a recent common ancestor (homoplasy).     

The types of homology and their significance for evolutionary biology and phylogenetics

This paper comments on recently revived discussion about the most adequate definition of homology. Homologues are considered as similarities of complex structures or patterns which are based on a continuity of biological information or instruction. Dependent on the level of comparison four types of homology are defined: (1) Iterative ( = serial = homonomy), (2) ontogenetic, (3) di- or polymorphic, and (4) supraspecific homology. The significance of all four types for evolutionary biology and phylogenetic analysis is outlined.     

Taxonomic names and phylogenetic trees

This paper addresses the issue of philosophy of names within the context of biological taxonomy, more specifically how names refer. By contrasting two philosophies of names, one that is based on the idea that names can be defined and one that they cannot be defined, I point out some advantages of the latter within phylogenetic systematics. Due to the changing nature of phylogenetic hypotheses, the former approach tends to rob taxonomy from its unique communicative value since a name that is defined refers to whatever fits the definition. This is particularly troublesome should the hypothesis of phylogenetic relationship change. I argue that, should we decide to accept a new phylogenetic hypothesis, it is also likely that our view of what to name may change. A system where names only refer acknowledge this, and accordingly leaves it open whether to keep a name (and accept the way it refers in the new hypothesis) or discard a name and introduce new names for the parts of the tree that we find scientifically interesting. One of the main differences between a phylogenetic system of definition (PSD) and a phylogenetic system of reference (PSR) is that the former is governed by laws of language while the latter by communicative needs of taxonomists. Thus, a PSR tends to give primacy to phylogenetic trees rather than phylogenetic definitions of names should our views of which phylogenetic hypothesis to accept change. © 1998 The Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters     

Homology and a generative theory of biological form

Homology continues to be a concept of central importance in the study of phylogenetic relations, but its relation to ontogenetic processes remains problematical. A definition of homology in terms of equivalent morphogenetic processes is defined and applied to the comparative study of tetrapod limbs. This allows for a consistent treatment of relations of similarity and difference of appendage structure in vertebrates, and the distinction between fishes fins and tetrapod limbs in terms of the concept of equivalence is described. The role of genes can also be clarified in this context, in particular the influence of the Hox 4 complex in determining digit character and the homeotic transformations that arise from changes in their expression patterns. It is argued that these observations are not compatible with the notion of homology between individual digits (I, II, III, etc.) across the tetrapods, and that homology cannot be consistently identified with gene action. The relations between homology and the properties of the morphogenetic limb field are discussed.     

Contemporary concepts of homology in biology (a theoretical review)

A brief review of the contemporary theoretical concepts of homology being developed basically in systematics and phylogenetics as well as in developmental biology is presented. Ontologically, both homology and analogy represent a kind of correspondence considered from the standpoint of nominalism, realism, and conceptualism. According to their nominalistic treatment, both are described by a set-theory approximation which makes them classes (in the logical sense). The realistic treatment provides their holistic view according to which a homologue is an anatomical or evolutionary singular while analogue remains a class. The conceptualistic treatment means that there are real (objective) correspondences existing among real (objective) entities while fixation of any of them is based on certain theoretical presumptions adopted by a researcher; homology as a natural kind (including homeostatic property cluster) seems to be most consistent with such a treatment. Realistic view of homology makes it "absolute", while two others make discrimination of homology and analogy strictly relative. Two basic general homology concepts have been developed in recent literature--taxic and transformational ones; the first considers respective correspondences as structure relations, the second as process relations. The taxic homology is nearly the same as classical typological one (Owen), while transformational homology unites all its phylogenetic, ontogenetic (developmental) and transformation-typological definitions. Process-structuralistic approach seems to unite both taxic and transformational ones. The latter makes it possible to apply general homology concept not only to structures but to processes as well. It is stressed that homology is not identical to the similarity, the latter being just the means for revealing the former. Some closer consideration is given to phylogenetic, ontogenetic and genetic treatments of homology; significant uncertainty is shown to exist between them which causes the "homology problem". Epistemologically, any homology statement has a status of hypothesis which makes such a statement theory-dependent according to the hypothetic-deductive argumentation scheme. This dependence allows to stress once more the relative nature of homology and analogy correspondences. Some questions concerning operational concepts and criteria of homology are considered. A hierarchical concept of homology seems to be the most promising prospect of future development of the "homology problem".     

Molecular homology and DNA hybridization

Summary We reviewed the concept of homology, which can broadly be defined as a correspondence between characteristics that is caused by continuity of information (Van Valen 1982). The concept applies widely in molecular biology when correspondence is taken to mean a genetic relationship resulting from a unique heritable modification of a feature at some previous point in time. Such correspodence can be established for features within a single organism as well as between organisms, making paralogy a valid form of molecular homology under this definition. Molecular homology can be recognized at a variety of organizational levels, which are intedependent. For example, the recognition of homology at the site level involves a statement of homology at the sequence level, and vice versa. This hierarchy, the potential for nonhomologous identity at the site level, and such processes as sequence transposition combine to yield a molecular equivalent to complex structural homology at the anatomical level. As a result, statements of homology between heritable units can involve a valid sense of percent homology.We analyzed DNA hybridization with respect to the problems of recognizing homology and using it in phylogenetic inference. Under a model requiring continuous divergence among compared sequences, DNA hybridization distances embed evolutionary hierarchy, and groups inferred using pairwise methods of tree reconstruction are based on underlying patterns of apomorphic homology. Thus, symplesiomorphic homology will not confound DNA hybridization phylogenies. However, nonhomologous identities that act like apomorphic homologies can lead to inaccurate reconstructions. The main difference between methods of phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences is that parsimony methods permit hypotheses of nonhomology, whereas distance methods do not.This article was presented at the C.S.E.O.L. Conference on DNA-DNA Hybridization and Evolution, Lake Arrowhead, California, May 11–14, 1989     

Developmental pathways,homology and homonomy in metameric animals

Following Wagner's (1989) distinction between historical and biological concepts of homology, we analyze homology problems of metameric animals in the light of a biological concept. In identifying homology, we refer to the common informational background which two structures share. Therefore, homology relationships are matters of degree; they are ‘perfect’ only when there is full identity of informational background between the structures under comparison. Homonomy (serial homology) is not fundamentally different from other kinds of homology. We regard the differences between epimorphically and anamorphically developed segments as minor; therefore, the two kinds of segments are largely homologous. The morphogenetic processes giving rise to segmental structures are regarded as not necessarily hierarchical. We contrast the phylogenetic pattern of hierarchically nested homologies with a largely non-hierarchical pattern of homologous structures within the individual organism. This topological difference adds to heterochrony in generating the widespread mismatch of ontogeny and phylogeny.     

Assessing similarity: on homology,characters and the need for a semantic approach to non‐evolutionary comparative homology

The problem of homology has been a consistent source of controversy at the heart of systematic biology, as has the step of morphological character analysis in phylogenetics. Based on a clear epistemic framework and a characterization of “characters” as diagnostic evidence units for the recognition of not directly identifiable entities, I discuss the ontological definition and empirical recognition criteria of phylogenetic, developmental and comparative homology, and how these three accounts of homology each contribute to an understanding of the overall phenomenon of homology. I argue that phylogenetic homologies are individuals or historical kinds that require comparative homology for identification. Developmental homologies are natural kinds that ultimately rest on phylogenetic homologies and also require comparative homology for identification. Comparative homologies on the other hand are anatomical structural kinds that are directly identifiable. I discuss pre‐Darwinian comparative homology concepts and their problem of invoking non‐material forces and involving the a priori assumption of a stable positional reference system. Based on Young's concept of comparative homology, I suggest a procedure for recognizing comparative homologues that lacks these problems and that utilizes a semantic framework. This formal conceptual framework provides the much needed semantic transparency and computer‐parsability for documenting, communicating and analysing similarity propositions. It provides an essential methodological framework for generalizing over individual organisms and identifying and demarcating anatomical structural kinds, and it provides the missing link to the logical chain of identifying phylogenetic homology. The approach substantially increases the analytical accessibility of comparative research and thus represents an important contribution to the theoretical and methodological foundation of morphology and comparative biology.     

The primary structure of hemoglobins of the rock hyrax (Procavia habessinica, Hyracoidea): insertion of glutamine in the alpha chains

The chromatography of the hemoglobin of the rock hyrax (Procavia habessinica) gives two components (73% HbI and 27% HbII). The amino-acid analysis and the sequences of the globin chains elucidated with the phenylthiohydantoin method, did not show any differences between the alpha I and alpha II or beta I and beta II chains, respectively. The different chromatographical behaviour cannot be explained. After chain separation by chromatography on CM-52 cellulose, all four primary structures were elucidated automatically in a sequenator on the chains and the tryptic peptides. In 20% of the beta I chains the N-terminal valine was blocked by acetyl. The alignment was performed by homology with the chains of human adult hemoglobin. The alpha chain of the rock hyrax has 142 amino-acid residues, i.e. one residue more than normal mammalian alpha chains, caused by an insertion of glutamine in the GH region supposed between positions 115 and 116. A comparison of human and hyrax hemoglobins shows an exchange of 21 amino-acid residues in the alpha chains and of 24 in the beta chains. Some substitutions in alpha 1 beta 1 contacts and in the surrounding of the heme are not supposed to effect the function of the hemoglobin. The phylogenetic relationship between the rock hyrax and the Indian elephant (Elephas maximus) on the one hand and with some Perissodactyla on the other, is discussed. Up to now the exchanges of alpha 110(G17)Ala leads to Ser and beta 56(D7)Gly leads to His have only been found in hyrax and elephant. This indicates a certain relationship between Hyracoidea and Proboscidea.     

Homology and homocracy revisited: gene expression patterns and hypotheses of homology

Homocracy, a term referring to shared regulatory gene expression patterns between organs in different animals, was introduced recently in order to prevent inappropriate inference of organ homology based on gene expression data. Non-homologous structures expressing homologous genes, and homologous structures expressing non-homologous genes illustrate that gene expression data is not sufficient on its own to identify morphological homology. However, gene expression data might be useful in testing hypotheses of organ homology, because parsimony can be applied on changes in the relation between expression of orthologous regulatory genes and the formation of homologous organs. A method of testing organ homology hypotheses with respect to change in regulatory gene expression required within a particular phylogenetic context is presented.Edited by R.J. Sommer     

Homology and heterochrony: the evolutionary embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer (1899-1972)

The evolutionary embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer can be viewed as one of the forerunners of modern evolutionary developmental biology in that he posed crucial questions and proposed relevant answers about the causal relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. In his developmental approach to the phylogenetic phenomenon of homology, he emphasized that homology of morphological structures is to be identified neither with the sameness of the underlying developmental processes nor with the homology of the genes that are involved in the development of the structures. De Beer's work on developmental evolution focused on the notion of heterochrony, arguing that paedomorphosis increases morphological evolvability and is thereby an important mode of evolution that accounts for the origin of many taxa, including higher taxa.     

Phenotypic characters of static homology increase phylogenetic stability under direct optimization of otherwise dynamic homology characters

Direct optimization of unaligned sequence characters provides a natural framework to explore the sensitivity of phylogenetic hypotheses to variation in analytical parameters. Phenotypic data, when combined into such analyses, are typically analyzed with static homology correspondences unlike the dynamic homology sequence data. Static homology characters may be expected to constrain the direct optimization and thus, potentially increase the similarity of phylogenetic hypotheses under different cost sets. However, whether a total-evidence approach increases the phylogenetic stability or not remains empirically largely unexplored. Here, I studied the impact of static homology data on sensitivity using six empirical data sets composed of several molecular markers and phenotypic data. The inclusion of static homology phenotypic data increased the average stability of phylogenetic hypothesis in five out of the six data sets. To investigate if any static homology characters would have similar effect, the analyses were repeated with randomized phenotypic data, and with one of the molecular markers fixed as static homology characters. These analyses had, on average, almost no effect on the phylogenetic stability, although the randomized phenotypic data sometimes resulted in even higher stability than empirical phenotypic data. The impact was related to the strength of the phylogenetic signal in the phenotypic data: higher average jackknife support of the phenotypic tree correlated with stronger stabilizing effect in the total-evidence analysis. Phenotypic data with a strong signal made the total-evidence trees topologically more similar to the phenotypic trees, thus, they constrained the dynamic homology correspondences of the sequence data. Characters that increase phylogenetic stability are particularly valuable for phylogenetic inference. These results indicate an important role and additive value of phenotypic data in increasing the stability of phylogenetic hypotheses in total-evidence analyses.     

Transformation Series as an Ideographic Character Concept

An ideographic concept of character is indispensable to phylogenetic inference. Hennig proposed that characters be conceptualized as “transformation series”, a proposal that is firmly grounded in evolutionary theory and consistent with the method of inferring transformation events as evidence of phylogenetic propinquity. Nevertheless, that concept is usually overlooked or rejected in favor of others based on similarity. Here we explicate Hennig's definition of character as an ideographic concept in the science of phylogenetic systematics. As transformation series, characters are historical individuals akin to species and clades. As such, the related concept of homology refers to a historical identity relation and is not equivalent to or synonymous with synapomorphy. The distinction between primary and secondary homology is dismissed on the grounds that it conflates the concept of homology with the discovery operations used to detect instances of that concept. Although concern for character dependence is generally valid, it is often misplaced, focusing on functional or developmental correlation (both of which are irrelevant in phylogenetic systematics but may be valid in other fields) instead of the historical/transformational independence relevant to phylogenetic inference. As an ideographic science concerned with concrete objects and events (i.e. individuals), intensionally and extensionally defined properties are inconsistent with the individuation of characters for phylogenetic analysis, the utility of properties being limited to communicating results and facilitating future rounds of testing.     

Cladistic information in phylogenetic definitions and designated phylogenetic contexts for the use of taxon names

A phylogenetic definition of a taxon name associates that name with a clade through its reference to a particular ancestor and all of its descendants. Depending on one's perspective, phylogenetic definitions name either clades on the one true, but unknown, phylogeny, or components on cladograms (clades on hypotheses regarding the true phylogeny). Phylogenetic definitions do not contain enough information to identify components without a reference cladogram. As a result, (1) if clades are equated with components on cladograms, a phylogenetic definition may associate a taxon name with different clades on different cladograms, and (2) the inclusiveness, diagnostic synapomorphies, and distribution in time and space of the clade with a particular name can differ markedly depending on the phylogenetic hypothesis one chooses to adopt. This potentially unacceptable lability in the clade to which a name refers can be avoided by using a taxon name in conjunction with only phylogenetic hypotheses on which specific taxa are related in a particular fashion. This designated phylogenetic context can be described in an n-taxon statement that would be appended to the phylogenetic definition. Use of the taxon name would be considered inappropriate in conjunction with cladograms on which the relationships contradict those in the n-taxon statement. Whereas phylogenetic definitions stabilize the meaning of taxon names, designated phylogenetic contexts would stabilize the usage of those names.     

Using quaternary structures to assess the evolutionary history of proteins: the case of the aspartate carbamoyltransferase

Many evolutionary scenarios describing the history of proteins are based solely on phylogenetic studies. We have designed a new approach that allows ascertainment of such questionable scenarios by taking into account quaternary structures: we used aspartate carbamoyltransferase (ATCase) as a case study. Prokaryotic ATCases correspond to different classes of quaternary structures according to the mode of association of the catalytic PyrB subunit with other polypeptides, either the PyrI regulatory subunit (class B) or a dihydroorotase (class A), which may be active (PyrC, subclass A1) or inactive (PyrC', subclass A2). Class C is uniquely made up of trimers of PyrB. The PyrB phylogenetic tree is not congruent with the tree of life, but it became coherent when we recognized the existence of two families of ATCases, ATC I and ATC II. Remarkably, a very strong correlation was found between the pattern of PyrB phylogenetic clustering and the different classes of quaternary structures of ATCases. All class B ATCases form a clade in family ATC II, which also contains all eukaryotic sequences. In contrast, family ATC I is made up of classes A and C. These results suggest unexpected common ancestry for prokaryotic B and eukaryotic ATCases on the one hand, and for A and C on the other. Thus, the emergence of specific quaternary structures appears to have been a more recent event than the separation into the ATC I and ATC II families. We propose that different evolutionary constraints, depending on the identity of the partners interacting in the different kinds of holoenzymes, operated in a concerted way on the ancestral pyrB genes and the respective associated genes pyrI or pyrC, so as to maintain appropriate inter-polypeptides interactions at the level of quaternary structure. The process of coevolution of genes encoding proteins interacting in various holoenzymes has been assessed by calculating the correlation coefficient between their respective phylogenetic trees. Our approach integrating data obtained from the separate fields of structural biology and molecular evolution could be useful in other cases where pure statistical data need to receive independent confirmation.