How stabilizing selection and nongenetic inheritance combine to shape the evolution of phenotypic plasticity

Relatively little is known about whether and how nongenetic inheritance interacts with selection to impact the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Here, we empirically evaluated how stabilizing selection and a common form of nongenetic inheritance—maternal environmental effects—jointly influence the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in natural populations of spadefoot toads. We compared populations that previous fieldwork has shown to have evolved conspicuous plasticity in resource‐use phenotypes (“resource polyphenism”) with those that, owing to stabilizing selection favouring a narrower range of such phenotypes, appear to have lost this plasticity. We show that: (a) this apparent loss of plasticity in nature reflects a condition‐dependent maternal effect and not a genetic loss of plasticity, that is “genetic assimilation,” and (b) this plasticity is not costly. By shielding noncostly plasticity from selection, nongenetic inheritance generally, and maternal effects specifically, can preclude genetic assimilation from occurring and consequently impede adaptive (genetic) evolution.     

Evolutionary Connectionism: Algorithmic Principles Underlying the Evolution of Biological Organisation in Evo-Devo,Evo-Eco and Evolutionary Transitions

The mechanisms of variation, selection and inheritance, on which evolution by natural selection depends, are not fixed over evolutionary time. Current evolutionary biology is increasingly focussed on understanding how the evolution of developmental organisations modifies the distribution of phenotypic variation, the evolution of ecological relationships modifies the selective environment, and the evolution of reproductive relationships modifies the heritability of the evolutionary unit. The major transitions in evolution, in particular, involve radical changes in developmental, ecological and reproductive organisations that instantiate variation, selection and inheritance at a higher level of biological organisation. However, current evolutionary theory is poorly equipped to describe how these organisations change over evolutionary time and especially how that results in adaptive complexes at successive scales of organisation (the key problem is that evolution is self-referential, i.e. the products of evolution change the parameters of the evolutionary process). Here we first reinterpret the central open questions in these domains from a perspective that emphasises the common underlying themes. We then synthesise the findings from a developing body of work that is building a new theoretical approach to these questions by converting well-understood theory and results from models of cognitive learning. Specifically, connectionist models of memory and learning demonstrate how simple incremental mechanisms, adjusting the relationships between individually-simple components, can produce organisations that exhibit complex system-level behaviours and improve the adaptive capabilities of the system. We use the term “evolutionary connectionism” to recognise that, by functionally equivalent processes, natural selection acting on the relationships within and between evolutionary entities can result in organisations that produce complex system-level behaviours in evolutionary systems and modify the adaptive capabilities of natural selection over time. We review the evidence supporting the functional equivalences between the domains of learning and of evolution, and discuss the potential for this to resolve conceptual problems in our understanding of the evolution of developmental, ecological and reproductive organisations and, in particular, the major evolutionary transitions.     

A striking example of developmental bias in an evolutionary process: The “domestication syndrome”

The question of whether “developmental bias” can influence evolution is still controversial, despite much circumstantial evidence and a good theoretical argument. Here, I will argue that the domestication of mammalian species, which took place independently more than two dozen times, provides a particularly convincing example of developmental bias in evolution. The singular finding that underlies this claim is the repeated occurrence in domesticated mammals of a set of distinctive traits, none of which were deliberately selected. This phenomenon has been termed “the domestication syndrome”. In this article, I will: (a) describe the properties of the domestication syndrome; (b) show how it can be explained in terms of the operation of a specific genetic regulatory network, that which governs neural crest cell development; and (c) discuss Dmitry Belyaev's idea of “destabilizing selection,” which holds that selecting for a new behavior often entails neuroendocrine alterations that alter many aspects of development. Finally, I will argue for the potential general significance of such destabilizing selection, in combination with developmental bias, in animal evolution.     

Why the short face? Developmental disintegration of the neurocranium drives convergent evolution in neotropical electric fishes

Convergent evolution is widely viewed as strong evidence for the influence of natural selection on the origin of phenotypic design. However, the emerging evo‐devo synthesis has highlighted other processes that may bias and direct phenotypic evolution in the presence of environmental and genetic variation. Developmental biases on the production of phenotypic variation may channel the evolution of convergent forms by limiting the range of phenotypes produced during ontogeny. Here, we study the evolution and convergence of brachycephalic and dolichocephalic skull shapes among 133 species of Neotropical electric fishes (Gymnotiformes: Teleostei) and identify potential developmental biases on phenotypic evolution. We plot the ontogenetic trajectories of neurocranial phenotypes in 17 species and document developmental modularity between the face and braincase regions of the skull. We recover a significant relationship between developmental covariation and relative skull length and a significant relationship between developmental covariation and ontogenetic disparity. We demonstrate that modularity and integration bias the production of phenotypes along the brachycephalic and dolichocephalic skull axis and contribute to multiple, independent evolutionary transformations to highly brachycephalic and dolichocephalic skull morphologies.     

Developmental constraints vs. variational properties: How pattern formation can help to understand evolution and development

This article suggests that apparent disagreements between the concept of developmental constraints and neo-Darwinian views on morphological evolution can disappear by using a different conceptualization of the interplay between development and selection. A theoretical framework based on current evolutionary and developmental biology and the concepts of variational properties, developmental patterns and developmental mechanisms is presented. In contrast with existing paradigms, the approach in this article is specifically developed to compare developmental mechanisms by the morphological variation they produce and the way in which their functioning can change due to genetic variation. A developmental mechanism is a gene network, which is able to produce patterns in space though the regulation of some cell behaviour (like signalling, mitosis, apoptosis, adhesion, etc.). The variational properties of a developmental mechanism are all the pattern transformations produced under different initial and environmental conditions or IS-mutations. IS-mutations are DNA changes that affect how two genes in a network interact, while T-mutations are mutations that affect the topology of the network itself. This article explains how this new framework allows predictions not only about how pattern formation affects variation, and thus phenotypic evolution, but also about how development evolves by replacement between pattern formation mechanisms. This article presents testable inferences about the evolution of the structure of development and the phenotype under different selective pressures. That is what kind of pattern formation mechanisms, in which relative temporal order, and which kind of phenotypic changes, are expected to be found in development.     

Evolution of Associative Learning in Chemical Networks

Organisms that can learn about their environment and modify their behaviour appropriately during their lifetime are more likely to survive and reproduce than organisms that do not. While associative learning – the ability to detect correlated features of the environment – has been studied extensively in nervous systems, where the underlying mechanisms are reasonably well understood, mechanisms within single cells that could allow associative learning have received little attention. Here, using in silico evolution of chemical networks, we show that there exists a diversity of remarkably simple and plausible chemical solutions to the associative learning problem, the simplest of which uses only one core chemical reaction. We then asked to what extent a linear combination of chemical concentrations in the network could approximate the ideal Bayesian posterior of an environment given the stimulus history so far? This Bayesian analysis revealed the ‘memory traces’ of the chemical network. The implication of this paper is that there is little reason to believe that a lack of suitable phenotypic variation would prevent associative learning from evolving in cell signalling, metabolic, gene regulatory, or a mixture of these networks in cells.     

The genetics and evo-devo of butterfly wing patterns

Understanding how the spectacular diversity of colour patterns on butterfly wings is shaped by natural selection, and how particular pattern elements are generated, has been the focus of both evolutionary and developmental biologists. The growing field of evolutionary developmental biology has now begun to provide a link between genetic variation and the phenotypes that are produced by developmental processes and that are sorted by natural selection. Butterfly wing patterns are set to become one of the few examples of morphological diversity to be studied successfully at many levels of biological organization, and thus to yield a more complete picture of adaptive morphological evolution.     

Population genetics of the Y chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster: rDNA variation and phenotypic correlates

One means of examining the evolutionary significance of molecular variation on the Y chromosome is to identify phenotypes specifically affected by Y-linked genes, and to quantify the phenotypic variation and its correlation to the molecular variation. The functional importance of the Y-linked array of rRNA genes is demonstrated by the ability of Y chromosome to rescue X-linked bobbed lethal alleles, whose lethality is seen in homozygous females. Because low numbers of X-linked rDNA gene copies result in increased developmental time and shortened bristles, and because there is considerable natural variation in Y-linked copy number, a careful examination of Y-linked variation in these two traits may uncover a mode of selection acting on the multigene family. In this study, 36 Y-chromosome replacement lines were tested to detect subtle variation in bristle phenotypes and developmental rates. Correlations among these traits, rDNA gene copy number, and intergenic sequence length were quantified. The absence of significant correlations between phenotypic characters and rDNA copy number of intergenic sequence length suggests that the extant molecular variation in Y-linked rDNA can have at most very small selective effects.     

The phenotypic variance gradient – a novel concept

Evolutionary ecologists commonly use reaction norms, which show the range of phenotypes produced by a set of genotypes exposed to different environments, to quantify the degree of phenotypic variance and the magnitude of plasticity of morphometric and life‐history traits. Significant differences among the values of the slopes of the reaction norms are interpreted as significant differences in phenotypic plasticity, whereas significant differences among phenotypic variances (variance or coefficient of variation) are interpreted as differences in the degree of developmental instability or canalization. We highlight some potential problems with this approach to quantifying phenotypic variance and suggest a novel and more informative way to plot reaction norms: namely “a plot of log (variance) on the y‐axis versus log (mean) on the x‐axis, with a reference line added”. This approach gives an immediate impression of how the degree of phenotypic variance varies across an environmental gradient, taking into account the consequences of the scaling effect of the variance with the mean. The evolutionary implications of the variation in the degree of phenotypic variance, which we call a “phenotypic variance gradient”, are discussed together with its potential interactions with variation in the degree of phenotypic plasticity and canalization.     

Causal mechanisms of evolution and the capacity for niche construction

Ernst Mayr proposed a distinction between “proximate”, mechanistic, and “ultimate”, evolutionary, causes of biological phenomena. This dichotomy has influenced the thinking of many biologists, but it is increasingly perceived as impeding modern studies of evolutionary processes, including study of “niche construction” in which organisms alter their environments in ways supportive of their evolutionary success. Some still find value for this dichotomy in its separation of answers to “how?” versus “why?”questions about evolution. But “why is A?” questions about evolution necessarily take the form “how does A occur?”, so this separation is illusory. Moreover, the dichotomy distorts our view of evolutionary causality, in that, contra Mayr, the action of natural selection, driven by genotype-phenotype-environment interactions which constitute adaptations, is no less “proximate” than the biological mechanisms which are altered by naturally selected genetic variants. Mayr’s dichotomy thus needs replacement by more realistic, mechanistic views of evolution. From a mechanistic viewpoint, there is a continuum of adaptations from those evolving as responses to unchanging environmental pressures to those evolving as the capacity for niche construction, and intermediate stages of this can be identified. Some biologists postulate an association of “phenotypic plasticity” (phenotype-environment covariation with genotype held constant) with capacity for niche construction. Both “plasticity” and niche construction comprise wide ranges of adaptive mechanisms, often fully heritable and resulting from case-specific evolution. Association of “plasticity” with niche construction is most likely to arise in systems wherein capacity for complex learning and behavioral flexibility have already evolved.     

Cultural and biological evolutionary processes, selection for a trait under complex transmission.

We consider the evolution of a trait, which is under both genetic and phenotypic transmission. An individual is always born in one state but can be converted to the other before reaching adulthood. If the conversion takes place by a learning process, the native state is called “unskilled,” and that acquired by learning is called “skilled.” If phenotypic conversion takes place by way of infection, the native state is uninfected, and can be converted to infected. Native and converted phenotypes may be subject to selection; acquiring a skill may lead to selective advantage of skilled versus unskilled, while contracting a disease may involve a selective disadvantage. Conversion probability is a function of the parental phenotypes. In some of our models we assume that only one parent has teaching ability (or transmits the disease) and in others we consider more general situations. The probability of learning (or of taking the disease) may be determined by the individual's genotype. A diallelic locus is considered. The evolution of the genotypes and the phenotypes is studied in a variety of situations. Equilibria, and in a few simple cases the dynamics of the phenotypes and genotypes in the population are given. The usual equilibrium for heterozygote advantage is found to depend, in the present case, on the parameters of the learning process. Oscillatory equilibria and more than one stable equilibrium can exist in certain circumstances. Even in the absence of genotypic differences for the conversion probability gene frequencies may change.     

Synthetic circuits reveal how mechanisms of gene regulatory networks constrain evolution

Phenotypic variation is the raw material of adaptive Darwinian evolution. The phenotypic variation found in organismal development is biased towards certain phenotypes, but the molecular mechanisms behind such biases are still poorly understood. Gene regulatory networks have been proposed as one cause of constrained phenotypic variation. However, most pertinent evidence is theoretical rather than experimental. Here, we study evolutionary biases in two synthetic gene regulatory circuits expressed in Escherichia coli that produce a gene expression stripe—a pivotal pattern in embryonic development. The two parental circuits produce the same phenotype, but create it through different regulatory mechanisms. We show that mutations cause distinct novel phenotypes in the two networks and use a combination of experimental measurements, mathematical modelling and DNA sequencing to understand why mutations bring forth only some but not other novel gene expression phenotypes. Our results reveal that the regulatory mechanisms of networks restrict the possible phenotypic variation upon mutation. Consequently, seemingly equivalent networks can indeed be distinct in how they constrain the outcome of further evolution.     

Arabidopsis thaliana leaf form evolved via loss of KNOX expression in leaves in association with a selective sweep

Morphological diversity is often caused by altered gene expression of key developmental regulators. However, the precise developmental trajectories through which morphologies evolved remain poorly understood. It is also unclear to what degree genetic changes contributing to morphological divergence were fixed by natural selection. Here we investigate these problems in the context of evolutionary developmental transitions that produced the simple unlobed leaf of the model species Arabidopsis thaliana. We demonstrate that A. thaliana leaf shape likely derived from a more complex lobed ancestral state that persists in extant Arabidopsis species. We also show that evolution of the unlobed leaf form in A. thaliana involved loss of expression of the knotted1-like homeobox gene SHOOTMERISTEMLESS (STM) in leaves and that cis-regulatory divergence contributed to this process. Further, we provide evidence for a selective sweep at the A. thaliana STM locus, indicating that loss of STM expression in A. thaliana leaves may have been fixed by positive selection. In summary, our data provide key information as to when and how the characteristic leaf form of A. thaliana evolved.     

Does phenotypic plasticity initiate developmental bias?

The generation of variation is paramount for the action of natural selection. Although biologists are now moving beyond the idea that random mutation provides the sole source of variation for adaptive evolution, we still assume that variation occurs randomly. In this review, we discuss an alternative view for how phenotypic plasticity, which has become well accepted as a source of phenotypic variation within evolutionary biology, can generate nonrandom variation. Although phenotypic plasticity is often defined as a property of a genotype, we argue that it needs to be considered more explicitly as a property of developmental systems involving more than the genotype. We provide examples of where plasticity could be initiating developmental bias, either through direct active responses to similar stimuli across populations or as the result of programmed variation within developmental systems. Such biased variation can echo past adaptations that reflect the evolutionary history of a lineage but can also serve to initiate evolution when environments change. Such adaptive programs can remain latent for millions of years and allow development to harbor an array of complex adaptations that can initiate new bouts of evolution. Specifically, we address how ideas such as the flexible stem hypothesis and cryptic genetic variation overlap, how modularity among traits can direct the outcomes of plasticity, and how the structure of developmental signaling pathways is limited to a few outcomes. We highlight key questions throughout and conclude by providing suggestions for future research that can address how plasticity initiates and harbors developmental bias.     

Evolution and maintenance of the environmental component of the phenotypic variance: benefit of plastic traits under changing environments

How environmental variances in quantitative traits are influenced by variable environments is an important problem in evolutionary biology. In this study, the evolution and maintenance of phenotypic variance in a plastic trait under stabilizing selection are investigated. The mapping from genotypic value to phenotypic value of the quantitative trait is approximated by a linear reaction norm, with genotypic effects on its phenotypic mean and sensitivity to environment. The environmental deviation is assumed to be decomposed into environmental quality, which interacts with genotypic value, and residual developmental noise, which is independent of genotype. Environmental quality and the optimal phenotype of stabilizing selection are allowed to randomly fluctuate in both space and time, and individuals migrate equally before development and reproduction among different niches. Analyses show that phenotypic plasticity is adaptive within variable environments if correlations have become established between the optimal phenotype and environmental quality in space and/or time. The evolved plasticity increases with variances in optimal phenotypes and correlations between optimal phenotype and environmental quality; this further induces increases in mean fitness and the environmental variance in the trait. Under certain circumstances, however, the environmental variance may decrease with increase in variation in environmental quality.     

Integrating genetic and environmental forces that shape the evolution of geographic variation in a marine snail

Temporal and spatial patterns of phenotypic variation have traditionally been thought to reflect genetic differentiation produced by natural selection. Recently, however, there has been growing interest in how natural selection may shape the genetics of phenotypic plasticity to produce patterns of geographic variation and phenotypic evolution. Because the covariance between genetic and environmental influences can modulate the expression of phenotypic variation, a complete understanding of geographic variation requires determining whether these influences covary in the same (cogradient variation) or in opposing (countergradient variation) directions. We focus on marine snails from rocky intertidal shores as an ideal system to explore how genetic and plastic influences contribute to geographic and historical patterns of phenotypic variation. Phenotypic plasticity in response to predator cues, wave action, and water temperature appear to exert a strong influence on small and large-scale morphological variation in marine snails. In particular, plasticity in snail shell thickness: (i) may contribute to phenotypic evolution, (ii) appears to have evolved across small and large spatial scales, and (iii) may be driven by life history trade-offs tied to architectural constraints imposed by the shell. The plasticity exhibited by these snails represents an important adaptive strategy to the pronounced heterogeneity of the intertidal zone and undoubtedly has played a key role in their evolution.     

Developmental plasticity and the origin of novel forms: unveiling cryptic genetic variation via "use and disuse"

Natural selection eliminates phenotypic variation from populations, generation after generation-an observation that haunted Darwin. So, how does new phenotypic variation arise, and is it always random with respect to fitness? Repeated behavioral responses to a novel environment-particularly those that are learned-are typically advantageous. If those behaviors yield more extreme or novel morphological variants via developmental plasticity, then previously cryptic genetic variation may be exposed to natural selection. Significantly, because the mean phenotypic effect of "use and disuse" is also typically favorable, previously cryptic genetic variation can be transformed into phenotypic variation that is both visible to selection and biased in an adaptive direction. Therefore, use-induced developmental plasticity in a very real sense "creates" new phenotypic variation that is nonrandom with respect to fitness, in contrast to the random phenotypic effects of mutation, recombination, and "direct effects" of environment (stress, nutrition). I offer here (a) a brief review of the immense literature on the effects of "use and disuse" on morphology, (b) a simple yet general model illustrating how cryptic genetic variation may be exposed to selection by developmentally plastic responses that alter trait performance in response to "use and disuse," and (c) a more detailed model of a positive feedback loop between learning (handed behavior) and morphological plasticity (use-induced morphological asymmetry) that may rapidly generate novel phenotypic variation and facilitate the evolution of conspicuous morphological asymmetries. Evidence from several sources suggests that handed behaviors played an important role both in the origin of novel forms (asymmetries) and in their subsequent evolution.     

Subtle,pervasive genetic correlation between the sexes in the evolution of dimorphic hummingbird tail ornaments*

Male hummingbirds have repeatedly evolved sexually dimorphic tails that they use as ornaments during courtship. We examine how male ornament evolution is reflected in female morphology. Lande's two-step model of the evolution of dimorphism predicts that γ (the genetic correlation between the sexes) causes trait elaboration to first evolve quickly in both sexes, then dimorphism evolves more slowly. On the hummingbird phylogeny, tail length does not fit this two-step model; although hummingbirds repeatedly evolved ornamental, elongated tails, dimorphism evolves on the same phylogenetic branch as elongation, implying that γ quickly evolves to be low over phylogenetic timescales. Male “bee” hummingbirds have evolved diverse rectrix shapes that they use to produce sound. Female morphologies exhibit subtle, pervasive correlations with male morphology. No female-adaptive hypotheses explain these correlations, since females do not also make sounds with their tail. Subtle shape similarity has arisen through the genetic correlation with males, and is subject to intralocus sexual conflict. Intralocus sexual conflict may produce increased phenotypic variation of female ornaments. Other evolutionary constraints on tail morphology include a developmental correlation between neighboring tail-feathers, biasing tail elaboration to occur most often at the ends of the feather tract (rectrix 5 or 1) and not the middle.     

Russian comparative embryology takes form: a conceptual metamorphosis toward “evo‐devo”

This essay recapitulates major paths followed by the Russian tradition of what we refer to today as evolutionary developmental biology (“evo‐devo”). The article addresses several questions regarding the conceptual history of evolutionary embryological thought in its particularly Russian perspective: (1) the assertion by the St. Petersburg academician Wolff regarding the possible connections between environmental modifications during morphogenesis and the “transformation” of species, (2) the discovery of shared “principles” underlying animal development by von Baer, (3) the experimental expression of Baer's principles by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, (4) Severtsov's theory of phylembryogenesis, (5) Filatov's approach to the study of evolution using comparative “developmental mechanics”, and (6) Shmalgausen's concept of “stabilizing” selection as an attempt to elucidate the evolution of developmental mechanisms. The focus on comparative evolutionary embryology, which was established by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, still continues to be popular in present‐day “evo‐devo” research in Russia.