In silico evo-devo: reconstructing stages in the evolution of animal segmentation

A design logic for sequential segmentation across organisms

Multitudes of organisms display metameric compartmentalization of their body plan. Segmentation of these compartments happens sequentially in diverse phyla. In several sequentially segmenting species, periodically active molecular clocks and signaling gradients have been found. The clocks are proposed to control the timing of segmentation, while the gradients are proposed to instruct the positions of segment boundaries. However, the identity of the clock and gradient molecules differs across species. Furthermore, sequential segmentation of a basal chordate, Amphioxus, continues at late stages when the small tail bud cell population cannot establish long-range signaling gradients. Thus, it remains to be explained how a conserved morphological trait (i.e., sequential segmentation) is achieved by using different molecules or molecules with different spatial profiles. Here, we first focus on sequential segmentation of somites in vertebrate embryos and then draw parallels with other species. Thereafter, we propose a candidate design principle that has the potential to answer this puzzling question.

Evo-devo beyond development: Generalizing evo-devo to all levels of the phenotypic evolution

A foundational idea of evo-devo is that morphological variation is not isotropic, that is, it does not occur in all directions. Instead, some directions of morphological variation are more likely than others from DNA-level variation and these largely depend on development. We argue that this evo-devo perspective should apply not only to morphology but to evolution at all phenotypic levels. At other phenotypic levels there is no development, but there are processes that can be seen, in analogy to development, as constructing the phenotype (e.g., protein folding, learning for behavior, etc.). We argue that to explain the direction of evolution two types of arguments need to be combined: generative arguments about which phenotypic variation arises in each generation and selective arguments about which of it passes to the next generation. We explain how a full consideration of the two types of arguments improves the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. Also see the video abstract here: https://youtu.be/Egbvma_uaKc.

Modelling the evolution of novelty: a review

Evolution has been an inventive process since its inception, about 4 billion years ago. It has generated an astounding diversity of novel mechanisms and structures for adaptation to the environment, for competition and cooperation, and for organisation of the internal and external dynamics of the organism. How does this novelty come about? Evolution builds with the tools available, and on top of what it has already built - therefore, much novelty consists in repurposing old functions in a different context. In the process, the tools themselves evolve, allowing yet more novelty to arise. Despite evolutionary novelty being the most striking observable of evolution, it is not accounted for in classical evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, mathematical and computational models that illustrate mechanisms of evolutionary innovation have been developed. In the present review, we present and compare several examples of computational evo-devo models that capture two aspects of novelty: 'between-level novelty' and 'constructive novelty.' Novelty can evolve between predefined levels of organisation to dynamically transcode biological information across these levels - as occurs during development. Constructive novelty instead generates a level of biological organisation by exploiting the lower level as an informational scaffold to open a new space of possibilities - an example being the evolution of multicellularity. We propose that the field of computational evo-devo is well-poised to reveal many more exciting mechanisms for the evolution of novelty. A broader theory of evolutionary novelty may well be attainable in the near future.

On the evolution and development of morphological complexity: A view from gene regulatory networks

How does morphological complexity evolve? This study suggests that the likelihood of mutations increasing phenotypic complexity becomes smaller when the phenotype itself is complex. In addition, the complexity of the genotype-phenotype map (GPM) also increases with the phenotypic complexity. We show that complex GPMs and the above mutational asymmetry are inevitable consequences of how genes need to be wired in order to build complex and robust phenotypes during development. We randomly wired genes and cell behaviors into networks in EmbryoMaker. EmbryoMaker is a mathematical model of development that can simulate any gene network, all animal cell behaviors (division, adhesion, apoptosis, etc.), cell signaling, cell and tissues biophysics, and the regulation of those behaviors by gene products. Through EmbryoMaker we simulated how each random network regulates development and the resulting morphology (i.e. a specific distribution of cells and gene expression in 3D). This way we obtained a zoo of possible 3D morphologies. Real gene networks are not random, but a random search allows a relatively unbiased exploration of what is needed to develop complex robust morphologies. Compared to the networks leading to simple morphologies, the networks leading to complex morphologies have the following in common: 1) They are rarer; 2) They need to be finely tuned; 3) Mutations in them tend to decrease morphological complexity; 4) They are less robust to noise; and 5) They have more complex GPMs. These results imply that, when complexity evolves, it does so at a progressively decreasing rate over generations. This is because as morphological complexity increases, the likelihood of mutations increasing complexity decreases, morphologies become less robust to noise, and the GPM becomes more complex. We find some properties in common, but also some important differences, with non-developmental GPM models (e.g. RNA, protein and gene networks in single cells).

Why call it developmental bias when it is just development?

The concept of developmental constraints has been central to understand the role of development in morphological evolution. Developmental constraints are classically defined as biases imposed by development on the distribution of morphological variation.

This opinion article argues that the concepts of developmental constraints and developmental biases do not accurately represent the role of development in evolution. The concept of developmental constraints was coined to oppose the view that natural selection is all-capable and to highlight the importance of development for understanding evolution. In the modern synthesis, natural selection was seen as the main factor determining the direction of morphological evolution. For that to be the case, morphological variation needs to be isotropic (i.e. equally possible in all directions). The proponents of the developmental constraint concept argued that development makes that some morphological variation is more likely than other (i.e. variation is not isotropic), and that, thus, development constraints evolution by precluding natural selection from being all-capable.

This article adds to the idea that development is not compatible with the isotropic expectation by arguing that, in fact, it could not be otherwise: there is no actual reason to expect that development could lead to isotropic morphological variation. It is then argued that, since the isotropic expectation is untenable, the role of development in evolution should not be understood as a departure from such an expectation. The role of development in evolution should be described in an exclusively positive way, as the process determining which directions of morphological variation are possible, instead of negatively, as a process precluding the existence of morphological variation we have no actual reason to expect.

This article discusses that this change of perspective is not a mere question of semantics: it leads to a different interpretation of the studies on developmental constraints and to a different research program in evolution and development. This program does not ask whether development constrains evolution. Instead it asks questions such as, for example, how different types of development lead to different types of morphological variation and, together with natural selection, determine the directions in which different lineages evolve.

Arthropod segmentation

There is now compelling evidence that many arthropods pattern their segments using a clock-and-wavefront mechanism, analogous to that operating during vertebrate somitogenesis. In this Review, we discuss how the arthropod segmentation clock generates a repeating sequence of pair-rule gene expression, and how this is converted into a segment-polarity pattern by ‘timing factor’ wavefronts associated with axial extension. We argue that the gene regulatory network that patterns segments may be relatively conserved, although the timing of segmentation varies widely, and double-segment periodicity appears to have evolved at least twice. Finally, we describe how the repeated evolution of a simultaneous (Drosophila-like) mode of segmentation within holometabolan insects can be explained by heterochronic shifts in timing factor expression plus extensive pre-patterning of the pair-rule genes.

Around the clock: gradient shape and noise impact the evolution of oscillatory segmentation dynamics

BACKGROUND

Segmentation, the subdivision of the major body axis into repeated elements, is considered one of the major evolutionary innovations in bilaterian animals. In all three segmented animal clades, the predominant segmentation mechanism is sequential segmentation, where segments are generated one by one in anterior-posterior order from a posterior undifferentiated zone. In vertebrates and arthropods, sequential segmentation is thought to arise from a clock-and-wavefront-type mechanism, where oscillations in the posterior growth zone are transformed into a segmental prepattern in the anterior by a receding wavefront. Previous evo-devo simulation studies have demonstrated that this segmentation type repeatedly arises, supporting the idea of parallel evolutionary origins in these animal clades. Sequential segmentation has been studied most extensively in vertebrates, where travelling waves have been observed that reflect the slowing down of oscillations prior to their cessation and where these oscillations involve a highly complex regulatory network. It is currently unclear under which conditions this oscillator complexity and slowing should be expected to evolve, how they are related and to what extent similar properties should be expected for sequential segmentation in other animal species.

RESULTS

To investigate these questions, we extend a previously developed computational model for the evolution of segmentation. We vary the slope of the posterior morphogen gradient and the strength of gene expression noise. We find that compared to a shallow gradient, a steep morphogen gradient allows for faster evolution and evolved oscillator networks are simpler. Furthermore, under steep gradients, damped oscillators often evolve, whereas shallow gradients appear to require persistent oscillators which are regularly accompanied by travelling waves, indicative of a frequency gradient. We show that gene expression noise increases the likelihood of evolving persistent oscillators under steep gradients and of evolving frequency gradients under shallow gradients. Surprisingly, we find that the evolutions of oscillator complexity and travelling waves are not correlated, suggesting that these properties may have evolved separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, we suggest that travelling waves may have evolved in response to shallow morphogen gradients and gene expression noise. These two factors may thus also be responsible for the observed differences between different species within both the arthropod and chordate phyla.

Ediacaran developmental biology

Rocks of the Ediacaran System (635-541 Ma) preserve fossil evidence of some of the earliest complex macroscopic organisms, many of which have been interpreted as animals. However, the unusual morphologies of some of these organisms have made it difficult to resolve their biological relationships to modern metazoan groups. Alternative competing phylogenetic interpretations have been proposed for Ediacaran taxa, including algae, fungi, lichens, rhizoid protists, and even an extinct higher-order group (Vendobionta). If a metazoan affinity can be demonstrated for these organisms, as advocated by many researchers, they could prove informative in debates concerning the evolution of the metazoan body axis, the making and breaking of axial symmetries, and the appearance of a metameric body plan. Attempts to decipher members of the enigmatic Ediacaran macrobiota have largely involved study of morphology: comparative analysis of their developmental phases has received little attention. Here we present what is known of ontogeny across the three iconic Ediacaran taxa Charnia masoni, Dickinsonia costata and Pteridinium simplex, together with new ontogenetic data and insights. We use these data and interpretations to re-evaluate the phylogenetic position of the broader Ediacaran morphogroups to which these taxa are considered to belong (rangeomorphs, dickinsoniomorphs and erniettomorphs). We conclude, based on the available evidence, that the affinities of the rangeomorphs and the dickinsoniomorphs lie within Metazoa.

Quantitative study of developmental biology confirms Dickinsonia as a metazoan

The late Ediacaran soft-bodied macroorganism Dickinsonia (age range approx. 560-550 Ma) has often been interpreted as an early animal, and is increasingly invoked in debate on the evolutionary assembly of eumetazoan body plans. However, conclusive positive evidence in support of such a phylogenetic affinity has not been forthcoming. Here we subject a collection of Dickinsonia specimens interpreted to represent multiple ontogenetic stages to a novel, quantitative method for studying growth and development in organisms with an iterative body plan. Our study demonstrates that Dickinsonia grew via pre-terminal 'deltoidal' insertion and inflation of constructional units, followed by a later inflation-dominated phase of growth. This growth model is contrary to the widely held assumption that Dickinsonia grew via terminal addition of units at the end of the organism bearing the smallest units. When considered alongside morphological and behavioural attributes, our developmental data phylogenetically constrain Dickinsonia to the Metazoa, specifically the Eumetazoa plus Placozoa total group. Our findings have implications for the use of Dickinsonia in developmental debates surrounding the metazoan acquisition of axis specification and metamerism.

Recent advances in understanding vertebrate segmentation

Segmentation is the partitioning of the body axis into a series of repeating units or segments. This widespread body plan is found in annelids, arthropods, and chordates, showing it to be a successful developmental strategy for growing and generating diverse morphology and anatomy. Segmentation has been extensively studied over the years. Forty years ago, Cooke and Zeeman published the Clock and Wavefront model, creating a theoretical framework of how developing cells could acquire and keep temporal and spatial information in order to generate a segmented pattern. Twenty years later, in 1997, Palmeirim and co-workers found the first clock gene whose oscillatory expression pattern fitted within Cooke and Zeeman's model. Currently, in 2017, new experimental techniques, such as new ex vivo experimental models, real-time imaging of gene expression, live single cell tracking, and simplified transgenics approaches, are revealing some of the fine details of the molecular processes underlying the inner workings of the segmentation mechanisms, bringing new insights into this fundamental process. Here we review and discuss new emerging views that further our understanding of the vertebrate segmentation clock, with a particular emphasis on recent publications that challenge and/or complement the currently accepted Clock and Wavefront model.

Development and evolution of segmentation assessed by geometric morphometrics: The centipede Strigamia maritima as a case study

Using the centipede model species Strigamia maritima as a subject of study, we illustrate the potential of geometric morphometrics for investigating the development and evolution of segmentation, with a specific focus on post-embryonic segmental patterning. We show how these techniques can contribute detailed descriptive data for comparative purposes, but also precious information on some features of the developmental system that are considered relevant for the evolvability of a segmented body architecture, such as developmental stability and canalization. Morphometric analyses allow to separately investigate several sources of phenotypic variation along a segmented body axis, like constitutive and random segment heteronomy, both within and among individuals. Specifically, in S. maritima, the segmental pattern of ventral sclerite shapes mirrors that of their bilateral fluctuating asymmetry and among-individual variation in associating the most anterior and most posterior segments in diverging from the central ones. Also, among segments, there seems to be a correlation between fluctuating asymmetry and shape variation among individuals, suggesting that canalization and developmental stability are somehow associated. Overall, these associations might stem from a joint influence of the segmental position on the two processes of developmental buffering.

The neuromuscular system of Pycnophyes kielensis (Kinorhyncha: Allomalorhagida) investigated by confocal laser scanning microscopy

Background

Kinorhynchs are ecdysozoan animals with a phylogenetic position close to priapulids and loriciferans. To understand the nature of segmentation within Kinorhyncha and to infer a probable ancestry of segmentation within the last common ancestor of Ecdysozoa, the musculature and the nervous system of the allomalorhagid kinorhynch Pycnophyes kielensis were investigated by use of immunohistochemistry, confocal laser scanning microscopy, and 3D reconstruction software.

Results

The kinorhynch body plan comprises 11 trunk segments. Trunk musculature consists of paired ventral and dorsal longitudinal muscles in segments 1–10 as well as dorsoventral muscles in segments 1–11. Dorsal and ventral longitudinal muscles insert on apodemes of the cuticle inside the animal within each segment. Strands of longitudinal musculature extend over segment borders in segments 1–6. In segments 7–10, the trunk musculature is confined to the segments. Musculature of the digestive system comprises a strong pharyngeal bulb with attached mouth cone muscles as well as pharyngeal bulb protractors and retractors. The musculature of the digestive system shows no sign of segmentation. Judged by the size of the pharyngeal bulb protractors and retractors, the pharyngeal bulb, as well as the introvert, is moved passively by internal pressure caused by concerted action of the dorsoventral muscles. The nervous system comprises a neuropil ring anterior to the pharyngeal bulb. Associated with the neuropil ring are flask-shaped serotonergic somata extending anteriorly and posteriorly. A ventral nerve cord is connected to the neuropil ring and runs toward the anterior until an attachment point in segment 1, and from there toward the posterior with one ganglion in segment 6.

Conclusions

Segmentation within Kinorhyncha likely evolved from an unsegmented ancestor. This conclusion is supported by continuous trunk musculature in the anterior segments 1–6, continuous pharyngeal bulb protractors and retractors throughout the anterior segments, no sign of segmentation within the digestive system, and the absence of ganglia in most segments. The musculature shows evidence of segmentation that fit the definition of an anteroposteriorly repeated body unit only in segments 7–10.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13227-016-0062-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.