Evo-devo and the search for homology (“sameness”) in biological systems

Developmental biology and evolutionary studies have merged into evolutionary developmental biology (“evo-devo”). This synthesis already influenced and still continues to change the conceptual framework of structural biology. One of the cornerstones of structural biology is the concept of homology. But the search for homology (“sameness”) of biological structures depends on our favourite perspectives (axioms, paradigms). Five levels of homology (“sameness”) can be identified in the literature, although they overlap to some degree: (i) serial homology (homonomy) within modular organisms, (ii) historical homology (synapomorphy), which is taken as the only acceptable homology by many biologists, (iii) underlying homology (i.e., parallelism) in closely related taxa, (iv) deep evolutionary homology due to the “same” master genes in distantly related phyla, and (v) molecular homology exclusively at gene level. The following essay gives emphasis on the heuristic advantages of seemingly opposing perspectives in structural biology, with examples mainly from comparative plant morphology. The organization of the plant body in the majority of angiosperms led to the recognition of the classical root–shoot model. In some lineages bauplan rules were transcended during evolution and development. This resulted in morphological misfits such as the Podostemaceae, peculiar eudicots adapted to submerged river rocks. Their transformed “roots” and “shoots” fit only to a limited degree into the classical model which is based on either–or thinking. It has to be widened into a continuum model by taking over elements of fuzzy logic and fractal geometry to accommodate for lineages such as the Podostemaceae.     

Homology and the hierarchy of biological systems

Homology is the similarity between organisms due to common ancestry. Introduced by Richard Owen in 1843 in a paper entitled "Lectures on comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals", the concept of homology predates Darwin's "Origin of Species" and has been very influential throughout the history of evolutionary biology. Although homology is the central concept of all comparative biology and provides a logical basis for it, the definition of the term and the criteria of its application remain controversial. Here, I will discuss homology in the context of the hierarchy of biological organization. I will provide insights gained from an exemplary case study in evolutionary developmental biology that indicates the uncoupling of homology at different levels of biological organization. I argue that continuity and hierarchy are separate but equally important issues of homology.     

Emerging model systems in evo-devo: horned beetles and the origins of diversity

Horned beetles and beetle horns are emerging as a model system suited to address fundamental questions in evolutionary developmental biology. Here we briefly review the biology of horned beetles and highlight the unusual opportunities they provide for evo-devo research. We then summarize recent advances in the development of new approaches and techniques that are now available to scientists interested in working with these organisms. We end by discussing ways to implement and combine these new approaches to explore new frontiers in evo-devo research previously unavailable to reseachers working outside traditional model organisms.     

Phylogeny,fossils, and model systems in the study of evolutionary developmental biology

The emerging field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) continues to operate largely under a single paradigm. In this paradigm developmental regulatory genes and processes are compared among a collection of "model organisms" selected primarily on the basis of their historical utility in the study of development. This approach has proven to be extremely informative, revealing an unexpected deep evolutionary conservation among developmental genes and genetic systems. Despite its success, concern has been expressed regarding its limitations. We discuss the "model organism" paradigm in evo-devo research. Based on our interpretation of its limitations, we propose a separate but complementary approach that is centered on "model groups." These groups are selected on the basis of their taxonomic affinity and their relevance to questions of interest to evo-devo biologists. We further discuss the Tetraodontiformes (Teleostei, Pisces) as an example of a "model group" for the evo-devo study of vertebrate skeletal elements.     

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.     

On the origin of the typological/population distinction in Ernst Mayr’s changing views of species, 1942–1959

Ernst Mayr’s typological/population distinction is a conceptual thread that runs throughout much of his work in systematics, evolutionary biology, and the history and philosophy of biology. Mayr himself claims that typological thinking originated in the philosophy of Plato and that population thinking was first introduced by Charles Darwin and field naturalists. A more proximate origin of the typological/population thinking, however, is found in Mayr’s own work on species. This paper traces the antecedents of the typological/population distinction by detailing Mayr’s changing views of species between 1942 and 1955. During this period, Mayr struggles to refine the biological species concept in the face of tensions that exist between studying species locally and studying them as geographically distributed collections of variable populations. The typological/population distinction is first formulated in 1955, when Mayr generalizes from the type concept versus the population concept in taxonomy to typological versus population thinking in biology more generally. Mayr’s appeal to the more general distinction between typological and population thinking coincides with the waning status of natural history and evolutionary biology that occurs in the early 1950s and the distinction plays an important role in Mayr’s efforts to legitimate the natural historical sciences.     

Evo-devo of non-bilaterian animals

The non-bilaterian animals comprise organisms in the phyla Porifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophora and Placozoa. These early-diverging phyla are pivotal to understanding the evolution of bilaterian animals. After the exponential increase in research in evolutionary development (evo-devo) in the last two decades, these organisms are again in the spotlight of evolutionary biology. In this work, I briefly review some aspects of the developmental biology of nonbilaterians that contribute to understanding the evolution of development and of the metazoans. The evolution of the developmental genetic toolkit, embryonic polarization, the origin of gastrulation and mesodermal cells, and the origin of neural cells are discussed. The possibility that germline and stem cell lineages have the same origin is also examined. Although a considerable number of non-bilaterian species are already being investigated, the use of species belonging to different branches of non-bilaterian lineages and functional experimentation with gene manipulation in the majority of the non-bilaterian lineages will be necessary for further progress in this field.     

How developmental is evolutionary developmental biology?

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) offers both an account of developmental processes and also new integrative frameworks for analyzing interactions between development and evolution. Biologists and philosophers are keen on evo-devo in part because it appears to offer a comfort zone between, on the one hand, what some take to be the relative inability of mainstream evolutionary biology to integrate a developmental perspective; and, on the other hand, what some take to be more intractable syntheses of development and evolution. In this article, I outline core concerns of evo-devo, distinguish theoretical and practical variants, and counter Sterelny's recent argument that evo-devo's attention to development, while important, offers no significant challenge to evolutionary theory as we know it. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution

Homology is at the foundation of comparative studies in biology at all levels from genes to phenotypes. Homology is similarity because of common descent and ancestry, homoplasy is similarity arrived at via independent evolution. However, given that there is but one tree of life, all organisms, and therefore all features of organisms, share some degree of relationship and similarity one to another. That sharing may be similarity or even identity of structure and the sharing of a most recent common ancestor--as in the homology of the arms of humans and apes--or it may reflect some (often small) degree of similarity, such as that between the wings of insects and the wings of birds, groups whose shared ancestor lies deep within the evolutionary history of the Metazoa. It may reflect sharing of entire developmental pathways, partial sharing, or divergent pathways. This review compares features classified as homologous with the classes of features normally grouped as homoplastic, the latter being convergence, parallelism, reversals, rudiments, vestiges, and atavisms. On the one hand, developmental mechanisms may be conserved, even when a complete structure does not form (rudiments, vestiges), or when a structure appears only in some individuals (atavisms). On the other hand, different developmental mechanisms can produce similar (homologous) features. Joint examination of nearness of relationship and degree of shared development reveals a continuum within an expanded category of homology, extending from homology --> reversals --> rudiments --> vestiges --> atavisms --> parallelism, with convergence as the only class of homoplasy, an idea that turns out to be surprisingly old. This realignment provides a glimmer of a way to bridge phylogenetic and developmental approaches to homology and homoplasy, a bridge that should provide a key pillar for evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). It will not, and in a practical sense cannot, alter how homoplastic features are identified in phylogenetic analyses. But seeing rudiments, reversals, vestiges, atavisms and parallelism as closer to homology than to homoplasy should guide us toward searching for the common elements underlying the formation of the phenotype (what some have called the deep homology of genetic and/or cellular mechanisms), rather than discussing features in terms of shared or independent evolution.     

The ontology of organisms: Mechanistic modules or patterned processes?

Though the realm of biology has long been under the philosophical rule of the mechanistic magisterium, recent years have seen a surprisingly steady rise in the usurping prowess of process ontology. According to its proponents, theoretical advances in the contemporary science of evo-devo have afforded that ontology a particularly powerful claim to the throne: in that increasingly empirically confirmed discipline, emergently autonomous, higher-order entities are the reigning explanantia. If we are to accept the election of evo-devo as our best conceptualisation of the biological realm with metaphysical rigour, must we depose our mechanistic ontology for failing to properly “carve at the joints” of organisms? In this paper, I challenge the legitimacy of that claim: not only can the theoretical benefits offered by a process ontology be had without it, they cannot be sufficiently grounded without the metaphysical underpinning of the very mechanisms which processes purport to replace. The biological realm, I argue, remains one best understood as under the governance of mechanistic principles.     

Conservation and co-option in developmental programmes: the importance of homology relationships

One of the surprising insights gained from research in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is that increasing diversity in body plans and morphology in organisms across animal phyla are not reflected in similarly dramatic changes at the level of gene composition of their genomes. For instance, simplicity at the tissue level of organization often contrasts with a high degree of genetic complexity. Also intriguing is the observation that the coding regions of several genes of invertebrates show high sequence similarity to those in humans. This lack of change (conservation) indicates that evolutionary novelties may arise more frequently through combinatorial processes, such as changes in gene regulation and the recruitment of novel genes into existing regulatory gene networks (co-option), and less often through adaptive evolutionary processes in the coding portions of a gene. As a consequence, it is of great interest to examine whether the widespread conservation of the genetic machinery implies the same developmental function in a last common ancestor, or whether homologous genes acquired new developmental roles in structures of independent phylogenetic origin. To distinguish between these two possibilities one must refer to current concepts of phylogeny reconstruction and carefully investigate homology relationships. Particularly problematic in terms of homology decisions is the use of gene expression patterns of a given structure. In the future, research on more organisms other than the typical model systems will be required since these can provide insights that are not easily obtained from comparisons among only a few distantly related model species.     

Evolutionary concepts meet the neck of penguins (Aves: Sphenisciformes), towards a “survival strategy” for evo-devo

Evolutionary developmental biology (or evo-devo) is the scientific connectivity that allowed a more comprehensive and practical completeness in the contemporary conceptualisation of evolution. The links between genetics, developmental mechanics and evolution led to a better understanding of evolutionary mechanisms. An analysis of evolutionary concepts such as homology, homeoses, constraints, novelties, modularity, and selection is given through the recurring example of the variations identified in the modular repartition of the cervical vertebrae in extant and fossil penguins. The inclusion of this study about penguins in the evolutionary system also involves a reflection on the current state and the future of evo-devo. Three principles of assessment and method, applicable to many natural and conceptual scales, are introduced to define a ??survival strategy?? for evo-devo. The above-mentioned principles are intended to strengthen and continue the connectivity induced de facto. These current and future investigation challenges are discussed and connected to three main naturalist names related directly to the conceptualisation of evolution: Charles Darwin, étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, and Lamarck.     

The concept of developmental reprogramming and the quest for an inclusive theory of evolutionary mechanisms

SUMMARY Evolutionary developmental biology has already made a major contribution to our understanding of evolutionary patterns, notably homology. However, while it has the potential to make an equally important contribution to our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms, and indeed to the integration of mechanism and pattern, it has not yet done so. This paper explores how this potential may be realized. In particular, I focus on the limitations of present-day neo-Darwinian theory, and indicate how a combination of the neo-Darwinian and "evo-devo" approaches provides a more inclusive view of evolutionary mechanisms with greater explanatory power. There is a particular focus on developmental reprogramming, which lies logically between mutation and selection, yet has been neglected in mainstream evolutionary theory. The inclusion of developmental reprogramming in the list of evolutionary mechanisms leads to a view that the direction of evolutionary change is determined by a combination of internal and external factors, rather than being controlled entirely by the environment.     

Cross-Testing Adaptive Hypotheses: Phylogenetic Analysis and the Origin of Bird Flight

Adaptive scenarios in evolutionary biology have always beenbased on incremental improvements through a series of adaptivestages. But they have often been justified by appeal to assumptionsof how natural selection must work or by appeal to optimalityarguments or notions of evolutionary process. Cladistic methodology,though it cannot logically falsify hypotheses of process, provideshypotheses of evolutionary pattern independent of other considerationsand so provides a useful test of consilience with genealogy.I illustrate the cross-test of hypotheses of the evolution ofseveral functions and adaptations related to the origin of birdflight with independently derived phylogenetic analysis. Consiliencedoes not support ideas that the close ancestors of birds werearboreal or evolved flight from the trees, nor that they werephysiologically intermediate between typical reptiles and livingbirds, nor that feathers evolved for flight. Rather, the ancestorsof birds were terrestrial, they were fast-growing, active animals,and the original functions of feathers were in insulation andcoloration.     

The choice of model organisms in evo-devo

Study of the model organisms of developmental biology was crucial in establishing evo-devo as a new discipline. However, it has been claimed that this limited sample of organisms paints a biased picture of the role of development in evolution. Consequently, judicious choice of new model organisms is necessary to provide a more balanced picture. The challenge is to determine the best criteria for choosing new model organisms, given limited resources.     

Are Probabilities Necessary For Evolutionary Explanations?

Several philosophers of science have advanced an instrumentalist thesis about the use of probabilities in evolutionary biology. I investigate the consequences of instrumentalism on evolutionary explanations. I take issue with Barbara Horan's (1994) argument that probabilities are unnecessary to explain evolutionary change given the underlying deterministic character of evolutionary processes. First, I question Horan's deterministic assumption. Then, I attempt to undermine her Laplacian argument by demonstrating that whether probabilities are necessary depends upon the sort of questions one is asking.     

Biological Versatility, Evolution, and Food Resource Exploitation in African Cichlid Fishes

Increased potential versatility in form and function of thefeeding apparatus of cichlid fishes has led to a prodigiousproliferation in the number of possible functional solutionsto an increasing variety of biological problems. Optimal utilizationof every conceivable trophic resource in lacustrine environmentsby just one fish family, the Cichlidae, has been achieved byeruptive evolutionary radiation within the characteristicallycichlid body plan producing mechanisms which partition the diversefood resources with extraordinary efficiency therefore minimizingresource sharing. There is a direct relationship between theeffectiveness of trophic resource exploitation and the functionalintegration of the cichlid body plan in which a minimum numberof adaptive compromises are necessary to evolve optimal anatomicalsolutions by rapidly realizable changes Anatomical data presented here reveal that cichlids possessa specific kind of mosaic in which the basic percoid jaw apparatuspermits unparalleled optimal adaptations by simple morphogeneticchanges while unique and dramatically diverse patterns of muscularcoordination involving degrees of synchrony and extensive modulatingcapabilities of antagonistic muscle groups have been discoveredelectromyographically. At the same time the highly integratedpharyngeal jaw apparatus is sufficiently specialized providingcomplete freedom for the jaws to evolve into refined collectingdevices. The exceptional evolutionary success of lacustrine cichlidsdemonstrates how rare and very specific kinds of biologicallyversatile morphological mosaics represent the best preadaptationsfor the ancestors of major new taxa. Given identical ecologicalconditions and temporal factors, a group of organisms possessingsuch rare mosaics, in which optimal biological versatility isrealizable by simple evolutionary mechanisms, will dominatenewly formed environments to the detriment of taxa not so endowed.     

植物进化发育生物学的形成与研究进展

植物进化发育生物学是最近十几年来才兴起的一门学科, 它是进化发育生物学的主要分支之一。进化发育生物学的产生经历了进化生物学与胚胎学、遗传学和发育生物学的三次大的综合, 其历史可追溯到19世纪初冯.贝尔所创立的比较胚胎学。相关研究曾沉寂了近一个世纪, 直到20世纪80年代早期, 动物中homeobox基因被发现, 90年代初花发育的 ABC模型被提出, 加之对发育相关基因研究的不断深入, 才使基因型与表型联系了起来, 进而促进了进化发育生物学的飞速发展。目前进化发育生物学已成为21世纪生命科学领域的研究热点之一。本文详细阐述了进化发育生物学产生和发展的历程, 综述了最近十几年来植物进化发育生物学的主要研究进展。文中重点介绍了与植物发育密切相关的MADS-box基因在植物各大类群中的研究现状, 讨论了植物进化发育生物学领域的研究成果对花被演化、花对称性以及叶的进化等重要问题的启示。     

Biodiversity: molecular biological domains, symbiosis and kingdom origins.

The number of extant species of organisms is estimated to be from fewer than 3 to more than 30 x 10(6) (May, 1992). Molecular biology, comparative genetics and ultrastructural analyses provide new insights into evolutionary relationships between these species, including increasingly precise ideas of how species and higher taxa have evolved from common ancestors. Accumulation of random mutations and large macromolecular sequence change in all organisms since the Proterozoic Eon has been importantly supplemented by acquisition of inherited genomes ('symbiogenesis'). Karyotypic alterations (polyploidization and karyotypic fissioning) have been added to these other mechanisms of species origin in plants and animals during the Phanerozoic Eon. The new evolution concepts (coupled with current rapid rates of species extinction and ignorance of the extent of biodiversity) prompted this analysis of the field of systematic biology and its role in the reorganization of extant species into higher taxa. Two superkingdoms (= Domains: Prokaryotae and Eukaryotae) and five kingdoms (Monera = Procaryotae or Bacteria; Protoctista: algae, amoebae, ciliates, foraminifera, oomycetes, slime molds, etc.; Mychota: 'true' fungi; Plantae: one phylum (division) of bryophytes and nine phyla of tracheophytes; and Animalia) are recognized. Two subkingdoms comprise the monera: the great diverse lineages are Archaebacteria and Eubacteria. The criteria for classification using molecular, ultrastructural and genetic data for this scheme are mentioned. For the first time since the nineteenth century, logical, technical definitions for each group are given with their time of appearance as inferred from the fossil record in the primary scientific literature. This classification scheme, which most closely reflects the evolutionary history, molecular biology, genetics and ultrastructure of extant life, requires changes in social organization of biologists, many of whom as botanists and zoologists, still behave as if there were only two important kingdoms (plants and animals).     

Evo-devo and the evolution of social behavior

The integration of evolutionary biology with developmental genetics into the hybrid field of 'evo-devo' resulted in major advances in understanding multicellular development and morphological evolution. Here we show how insights from evo-devo can be applied to study the evolution of social behavior. We develop this idea by reviewing studies that suggest that molecular pathways controlling feeding behavior and reproduction in solitary insects are part of a 'genetic toolkit' underlying the evolution of a particularly complex form of social behavior, division of labor among workers in honeybee colonies. The evo-devo approach, coupled with advances in genomics for non-model genetic organisms, including the recent sequencing of the honeybee genome, promises to advance our understanding of the evolution of social behavior.