Phylo-evo-devo: combining phylogenetics with evolutionary developmental biology

Exploring the patterns of evolution: Core thoughts and focus on the saltational model

The Modern Synthesis, a pillar in biological thought, united Darwin's species origin concepts with Mendel's laws of character heredity, providing a comprehensive understanding of evolution within species. Highlighting phenotypic variation and natural selection, it elucidated the environment's role as a selective force, shaping populations over time. This framework integrated additional mechanisms, including genetic drift, random mutations, and gene flow, predicting their cumulative effects on microevolution and the emergence of new species. Beyond the Modern Synthesis, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis expands perspectives by recognizing the role of developmental plasticity, non-genetic inheritance, and epigenetics. We suggest that these aspects coexist in the plant evolutionary process; in this context, we focus on the saltational model, emphasizing how saltation events, such as dichotomous saltation, chromosomal mutations, epigenetic phenomena, and polyploidy, contribute to rapid evolutionary changes. The saltational model proposes that certain evolutionary changes, such as the rise of new species, may result suddenly from single macromutations rather than from gradual changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time. These events, observed in domesticated and wild higher plants, provide well-defined mechanistic bases, revealing their profound impact on plant diversity and rapid evolutionary events. Notably, next-generation sequencing exposes the likely crucial role of allopolyploidy and autopolyploidy (saltational events) in generating new plant species, each characterized by distinct chromosomal complements. In conclusion, through this review, we offer a thorough exploration of the ongoing dissertation on the saltational model, elucidating its implications for our understanding of plant evolutionary processes and paving the way for continued research in this intriguing field.

Paradigms in tick evolution

The study of tick evolution may be classified into disciplines such as taxonomy and systematics, biogeography, evolution and development (evo-devo), ecology, and hematophagy. These disciplines overlap and impact each other to various extents. Advances in one field may lead to paradigm shifts in our understanding of tick evolution not apparent to other fields. The current study considers paradigm shifts that occurred, are in the process, or may occur in future for the disciplines that study tick evolution. Some disciplines have undergone significant changes, while others may still be developing their own paradigms. Integration of these various disciplines is essential to come to a holistic view of tick evolution; however, maturation of paradigms may be necessary before this vision can be attained.

Ontogeny, Phylotypic Periods, Paedomorphosis, and Ontogenetic Systematics

The key terms linking ontogeny and evolution are briefly reviewed. It is shown that their application and usage in the modern biology are often inconsistent and incorrectly understood even within the “evo-devo” field. For instance, the core modern reformulation that ontogeny not merely recapitulates, but produces phylogeny implies that ontogeny and phylogeny are closely interconnected. However, the vast modern phylogenetic and taxonomic fields largely omit ontogeny as a central concept. Instead, the common “clade-” and “tree-thinking” prevail, despite on the all achievements of the evo-devo. This is because the main conceptual basis of the modern biology is fundamentally ontogeny-free. In another words, in the Haeckel’s pair of “ontogeny and phylogeny,” ontogeny is still just a subsidiary for the evolutionary process (and hence, phylogeny), instead as in reality, its main driving force. The phylotypic periods is another important term of the evo-devo and represent a modern reformulation of Haeckel’s recapitulations and biogenetic law. However, surprisingly, this one of the most important biological evidence, based on the natural ontogenetic grounds, in the phylogenetic field that can be alleged as a “non-evolutionary concept.” All these observations clearly imply that a major revision of the main terms which are associated with the “ontogeny and phylogeny/evolution” field is urgently necessarily. Thus, “ontogenetic” is not just an endless addition to the term “systematics,” but instead a crucial term, without it neither systematics, nor biology have sense. To consistently employ the modern ontogenetic and epigenetic achievements, the concept of ontogenetic systematics is hereby refined. Ontogenetic systematics is not merely a “research program” but a key biological discipline which consistently links the enormous biological diversity with underlying fundamental process of ontogeny at both molecular and morphological levels. The paedomorphosis is another widespread ontogenetic-and-evolutionary process that is significantly underestimated or misinterpreted by the current phylogenetics and taxonomy. The term paedomorphosis is refined, as initially proposed to link ontogeny with evolution, whereas “neoteny” and “progenesis” are originally specific, narrow terms without evolutionary context, and should not be used as synonyms of paedomorphosis. Examples of application of the principles of ontogenetic systematics represented by such disparate animal groups as nudibranch molluscs and ophiuroid echinoderms clearly demonstrate that perseverance of the phylotypic periods is based not only on the classic examples in vertebrates, but it is a universal phenomenon in all organisms, including disparate animal phyla.

Multiplicity of Research Programs in the Biological Systematics: A Case for Scientific Pluralism

Biological diversity (BD) explored by biological systematics is a complex yet organized natural phenomenon and can be partitioned into several aspects, defined naturally with reference to various causal factors structuring biota. These BD aspects are studied by particular research programs based on specific taxonomic theories (TTs). They provide, in total, a framework for comprehending the structure of biological systematics and its multi-aspect relations to other fields of biology. General principles of individualizing BD aspects and construing TTs as quasi-axiomatics are briefly considered. It is stressed that each TT is characterized by a specific combination of interrelated ontological and epistemological premises most adequate to the BD aspect a TT deals with. The following contemporary research programs in systematics are recognized and characterized in brief: phenetic, rational (with several subprograms), numerical, typological (with several subprograms), biosystematic, biomorphic, phylogenetic (with several subprograms), and evo-devo. From a scientific pluralism perspective, all of these research programs, if related to naturally defined particular BD aspects, are of the same biological and scientific significance. They elaborate “locally” natural classifications that can be united by a generalized faceted classification.

Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) Research in Latin America

Famous for its blind cavefish and Darwin's finches, Latin America is home to some of the richest biodiversity hotspots of our planet. The Latin American fauna and flora inspired and captivated naturalists from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, including such notable pioneers such as Fritz Müller, Florentino Ameghino, and Léon Croizat who made a significant contribution to the study of embryology and evolutionary thinking. But, what are the historical and present contributions of the Latin American scientific community to Evo-Devo? Here, we provide the first comprehensive overview of the Evo-Devo laboratories based in Latin America and describe current lines of research based on endemic species, focusing on body plans and patterning, systematics, physiology, computational modeling approaches, ecology, and domestication. Literature searches reveal that Evo-Devo in Latin America is still in its early days; while showing encouraging indicators of productivity, it has not stabilized yet, because it relies on few and sparsely distributed laboratories. Coping with the rapid changes in national scientific policies and contributing to solve social and health issues specific to each region are among the main challenges faced by Latin American researchers. The 2015 inaugural meeting of the Pan-American Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology played a pivotal role in bringing together Latin American researchers eager to initiate and consolidate regional and worldwide collaborative networks. Such networks will undoubtedly advance research on the extremely high genetic and phenotypic biodiversity of Latin America, bound to be an almost infinite source of amazement and fascinating findings for the Evo-Devo community.

Species diversity vs. morphological disparity in the light of evolutionary developmental biology

BACKGROUND

Two indicators of a clade's success are its diversity (number of included species) and its disparity (extent of morphospace occupied by its members). Many large genera show high diversity with low disparity, while others such as Euphorbia and Drosophila are highly diverse but also exhibit high disparity. The largest genera are often characterized by key innovations that often, but not necessarily, coincide with their diagnostic apomorphies. In terms of their contribution to speciation, apomorphies are either permissive (e.g. flightlessness) or generative (e.g. nectariferous spurs).

SCOPE

Except for Drosophila, virtually no genus among those with the highest diversity or disparity includes species currently studied as model species in developmental genetics or evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). An evo-devo approach is, however, potentially important to understand how diversity and disparity could rapidly increase in the largest genera currently accepted by taxonomists. The most promising directions for future research and a set of key questions to be addressed are presented in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

From an evo-devo perspective, the evolution of clades with high diversity and/or disparity can be addressed from three main perspectives: (1) evolvability, in terms of release from previous constraints and of the presence of genetic or developmental conditions favouring multiple parallel occurrences of a given evolutionary transition and its reversal; (2) phenotypic plasticity as a facilitator of speciation; and (3) modularity, heterochrony and a coupling between the complexity of the life cycle and the evolution of diversity and disparity in a clade. This simple preliminary analysis suggests a set of topics that deserve priority for scrutiny, including the possible role of saltational evolution in the origination of high diversity and/or disparity, the predictability of morphological evolution following release from a former constraint, and the extent and the possible causes of a positive correlation between diversity and disparity and the complexity of the life cycle.

The significance and scope of evolutionary developmental biology: a vision for the 21st century

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) has undergone dramatic transformations since its emergence as a distinct discipline. This paper aims to highlight the scope, power, and future promise of evo-devo to transform and unify diverse aspects of biology. We articulate key questions at the core of eleven biological disciplines-from Evolution, Development, Paleontology, and Neurobiology to Cellular and Molecular Biology, Quantitative Genetics, Human Diseases, Ecology, Agriculture and Science Education, and lastly, Evolutionary Developmental Biology itself-and discuss why evo-devo is uniquely situated to substantially improve our ability to find meaningful answers to these fundamental questions. We posit that the tools, concepts, and ways of thinking developed by evo-devo have profound potential to advance, integrate, and unify biological sciences as well as inform policy decisions and illuminate science education. We look to the next generation of evolutionary developmental biologists to help shape this process as we confront the scientific challenges of the 21st century.

Evolution of the YABBY gene family with emphasis on the basal eudicot Eschscholzia californica (Papaveraceae)

YABBY genes are seed plant-specific transcriptional regulators that are involved in diverse aspects of leaf, shoot and flower development. A series of duplications gave rise to five gene groups found throughout flowering plants. In Arabidopsis and other species, expression of two gene groups, CRABS CLAW and INNER NO OUTER, is restricted to floral organs. In contrast, members of the FILAMENTOUS FLOWER, YABBY2 and YABBY5 gene groups are also expressed in leaves and have been termed 'vegetative YABBYs'. How the five paralogue groups evolved and how their expression and function diversified have remained largely unresolved, precluding a reconstruction of the natural history of this gene family. Here, we report new genes from Eschscholzia californica (Ranunculales, Papaveraceae) that we use together with currently available database sequences in a comprehensive phylogenetic re-evaluation of the YABBY gene family. Multilayered Bayesian analysis covering seed plants allowed us to locate Eschscholzia YABBY sequences within the gene family phylogeny. We established that vegetative YABBYs do not form a monophyletic clade, and that CRABS CLAW and FILAMENTOUS FLOWER arose from a common ancestor gene. INNER NO OUTER genes are sister to that ancestral gene. We identified several conserved motifs outside of known amino acid domains that define all five angiosperm YABBY gene clades. Further, we inferred the evolution of gene expression and provide evidence for release of purifying constraint in certain branches of the gene family tree. Finally, we report expression patterns for five Eschscholzia YABBY genes consistent with functional conservation between early-diverged and core eudicots.

What is the phylogenetic signal limit from mitogenomes? The reconciliation between mitochondrial and nuclear data in the Insecta class phylogeny

BACKGROUND

Efforts to solve higher-level evolutionary relationships within the class Insecta by using mitochondrial genomic data are hindered due to fast sequence evolution of several groups, most notably Hymenoptera, Strepsiptera, Phthiraptera, Hemiptera and Thysanoptera. Accelerated rates of substitution on their sequences have been shown to have negative consequences in phylogenetic inference. In this study, we tested several methodological approaches to recover phylogenetic signal from whole mitochondrial genomes. As a model, we used two classical problems in insect phylogenetics: The relationships within Paraneoptera and within Holometabola. Moreover, we assessed the mitochondrial phylogenetic signal limits in the deeper Eumetabola dataset, and we studied the contribution of individual genes.

RESULTS

Long-branch attraction (LBA) artefacts were detected in all the datasets. Methods using Bayesian inference outperformed maximum likelihood approaches, and LBA was avoided in Paraneoptera and Holometabola when using protein sequences and the site-heterogeneous mixture model CAT. The better performance of this method was evidenced by resulting topologies matching generally accepted hypotheses based on nuclear and/or morphological data, and was confirmed by cross-validation and simulation analyses. Using the CAT model, the order Strepsiptera was recovered as sister to Coleoptera for the first time using mitochondrial sequences, in agreement with recent results based on large nuclear and morphological datasets. Also the Hymenoptera-Mecopterida association was obtained, leaving Coleoptera and Strepsiptera as the basal groups of the holometabolan insects, which coincides with one of the two main competing hypotheses. For the Paraneroptera, the currently accepted non-monophyly of Homoptera was documented as a phylogenetic novelty for mitochondrial data. However, results were not satisfactory when exploring the entire Eumetabola, revealing the limits of the phylogenetic signal that can be extracted from Insecta mitogenomes. Based on the combined use of the five best topology-performing genes we obtained comparable results to whole mitogenomes, highlighting the important role of data quality.

CONCLUSION

We show for the first time that mitogenomic data agrees with nuclear and morphological data for several of the most controversial insect evolutionary relationships, adding a new independent source of evidence to study relationships among insect orders. We propose that deeper divergences cannot be inferred with the current available methods due to sequence saturation and compositional bias inconsistencies. Our exploratory analysis indicates that the CAT model is the best dealing with LBA and it could be useful for other groups and datasets with similar phylogenetic difficulties.