Abstract
A driving hypothesis of evolutionary developmental biology is that animal morphological diversity is shaped both by adaptation and by developmental constraints. Here, we have tested Darwin’s “selection opportunity” hypothesis, according to which high evolutionary divergence in late development is due to strong positive selection. We contrasted it to a “developmental constraint” hypothesis, according to which late development is under relaxed negative selection. Indeed, the highest divergence between species, both at the morphological and molecular levels, is observed late in embryogenesis and postembryonically. To distinguish between adaptation and relaxation hypotheses, we investigated the evidence of positive selection on protein-coding genes in relation to their expression over development, in fly Drosophila melanogaster, zebrafish Danio rerio, and mouse Mus musculus. First, we found that genes specifically expressed in late development have stronger signals of positive selection. Second, over the full transcriptome, genes with evidence for positive selection trend to be expressed in late development. Finally, genes involved in pathways with cumulative evidence of positive selection have higher expression in late development. Overall, there is a consistent signal that positive selection mainly affects genes and pathways expressed in late embryonic development and in adult. Our results imply that the evolution of embryogenesis is mostly conservative, with most adaptive evolution affecting some stages of postembryonic gene expression, and thus postembryonic phenotypes. This is consistent with the diversity of environmental challenges to which juveniles and adults are exposed.
Highlights
There are two main models to explain the relationship of development and evolutionary divergence
As the modules decompose the genes into different meta development stages, they allow to avoid the potential bias caused by imbalanced time points in each meta development stage from our transcriptome data sets; for example, many more “late development” samples in fly than in the other two species studied
Correcting Confounding Factors As some nonadaptive factors can be correlated with DlnL and affect our results (Daub et al 2017), we investigated the correlation between DlnL and these potential confounding factors
Summary
There are two main models to explain the relationship of development and evolutionary divergence. The early conservation model suggests that embryonic morphology between different species within the same group progressively diverges across development (Von-Baer 1828); such groups are usually understood to be phyla in a modern context. On the basis of recent genomic studies, both models have some level of molecular support. Some studies support the early conservation model (Roux and Robinson-Rechavi 2008; Artieri et al 2009), while most recent ones support the hourglass model (Kalinka et al 2010; Irie and Kuratani 2011; Levin et al 2012; Quint et al 2012; Drost et al 2015; Hu et al 2017; Zalts and Yanai 2017). The two models may not be mutually exclusive (Piasecka et al 2013; Liu and Robinson-Rechavi 2018)
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have