Combing evolution
J. True
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2008.00250.x
Evolution & Development
Abstract:One of the main goals of evolutionary developmental biology is to understand the developmental genetic changes underlying morphological novelty. Rapidly evolving structures are frequently different between closely related species and provide the best opportunities for applying genetic approaches to novelty. Many animal species differ in the presence of novel male secondary sexual traits, which are presumably under strong sexual selection. Moreover, these traits can offer insights into how multiple components of the developmental ‘‘address’’ (Wolpert 1984) are integrated in morphological evolution, because not only do they appear in specific places on the animal but also they are sexually dimorphic, and hence involve regulation by the somatic sex determination system. The Drosophila sex comb is an ideal model structure for these studies. It is a specialized row of thick, curved, and heavily melanized bristles (‘‘teeth’’) found on the foreleg tarsi (only on the first or first and second of the five tarsal segments) of males, but absent in females (Fig. 1, top). In D. melanogaster, the row of teeth is parallel to the leg axis. The sex comb teeth represent transformed transverse row bristles that undergo a rotation during leg bristle development in the early pupal stage (Held et al. 2004). The structure occurs only in a minority of Drosophila species: in the melanogaster and obscura species groups. Each sex combbearing species has a particular comb morphology; morphology of the teeth, degree of rotation, number of teeth, and presence on the second tarsal segment all vary among species (Kopp and True 2002). Three recently published studies (Barmina and Kopp 2007; Ng and Kopp 2008; Randsholt and Santamaria 2008) have shed important new light on the development and evolution of the sex comb, helping to explain its origins, the remarkable evolutionary lability of the structure, and how selection has promoted its evolution. First, new results from Barmina and Kopp (2007) and Randsholt and Santamaria (2008) have probed the developmental regulatory underpinnings of sex comb development in D. melanogaster. Barmina and Kopp (2007) demonstrated that the HOX gene Sex Combs reduced, which controls the segment-specific morphology of the first thoracic segment, is expressed in a late, sex-specific pattern in the developing prothoracic tarsi, which precisely presages the proximodistal position of sex combs in all of 20 Drosophila species studied. Such late HOX expression controlling the fine details of segment morphology, once surprising, is beginning to be a common theme. Transcriptional regulation by the HOX protein Ultrabithorax (Ubx) is integrated at many levels in developmental pathways (Weatherbee et al. 1998), and differences between species in fine-scale segmental morphology, such as cuticular trichome patterns (Stern 1998), are due in part to genetic differences at Ubx. Through a phylogenetic analysis, Barmina and Kopp were able to infer that the common ancestor of both the melanogaster and the obscura species groups possessed sex combs on both the first and the second tarsi of the prothoracic leg. Subsequently, at least five independent losses occurred in various lineages. Moreover, they found that rotation of sex combs is evolutionarily labile, with many transitions occurring in both directions between transverse and rotated sex combs. They also concluded that many cases of distantly related species bearing similar sex comb morphologies are likely to be the results of convergent evolution. Randsholt and Santamaria (2008) have dissected the developmental genetics of the sex comb in even more detail, uncovering a regulatory circuit that integrates information from the HOX, proximodistal, and sex determination pathways. In this circuit (Fig. 1, bottom), the negative regulator Bab is repressed by Dac, which also activates Scr expression, resulting in the male-specific pattern. This is highly reminiscent of the pathway by which Bab integrates HOX expression and sex determination in the development of sexually dimorphic abdominal pigmentation and morphology (Kopp et al. 2000). In that pathway, Bab also represses the development of male-specific characters. This negative regulation is relieved by AbdB in males but maintained by Dsx in females. Thus AbdB and Dac play analogous roles in the abdomen and leg, respectively, in that they both negatively regulate bab and activate genes that promote male development. It is important to note that the association between expression of a major regulatory protein, such as Scr, and the presence and evolution of the sex comb in many species does not imply that changes at the Scr gene are solely responsible for this evolution. This is a common misunderstanding in popular literature (e.g., Judson 2008). Quantitative trait locus studies of interspecies genetic crosses are required to address EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 10:4, 400 –402 (2008)