In search of morphological modules: a systematic review

Esteve‐Altava, Borja

doi:10.1111/brv.12284

Cited by 102 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 253 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This remains highly uncertain. Unfortunately, studies on the morphological integration and modularity of pectoral and pelvic fins are scarce (reviewed in Esteve‐Altava ). For example, the modularity of fins has been studied in fishes, comparing patterns of presence and disparity among pectoral, pelvic, dorsal, anal, and caudal fins (Larouche et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomical network analysis of the musculoskeletal system reveals integration loss and parcellation boost during the fins-to-limbs transition

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tetrapods evolved from within the lobe-finned fishes around 370 Ma. The evolution of limbs from lobe-fins entailed a major reorganization of the skeletal and muscular anatomy of appendages in early tetrapods. Concurrently, a degree of similarity between pectoral and pelvic appendages also evolved. Here, we compared the anatomy of appendages in extant lobe-finned fishes (Latimeria and Neoceratodus) and anatomically plesiomorphic amphibians (Ambystoma, Salamandra) and amniotes (Sphenodon) to trace and reconstruct the musculoskeletal changes that took place during the fins-to-limbs transition. We quantified the anatomy of appendages using network analysis. First, we built network models-in which nodes represent bones and muscles, and links represent their anatomical connections-and then we measured network parameters related to their anatomical integration, heterogeneity, and modularity. Our results reveal an evolutionary transition toward less integrated, more modular appendages. We interpret this transition as a diversification of muscle functions in tetrapods compared to lobe-finned fishes. Limbs and lobe-fins show also a greater similarity between their pectoral and pelvic appendages than ray-fins do. These findings on extant species provide a basis for future quantitative and comprehensive reconstructions of the anatomy of limbs in early tetrapod fossils, and a way to better understand the fins-to-limbs transition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomical network analysis of the musculoskeletal system reveals integration loss and parcellation boost during the fins-to-limbs transition

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, the following three explicit hypotheses of intrafloral modularity have been advanced. The first hypothesis is the attraction‐reproduction modularity hypothesis ; which proposes that flowers are divided into two modules: a module of attraction comprising the petals and the sepals; and a module of reproduction comprising the stamens and the carpels (Esteve‐Altava, ) (see Fig. a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modularity and evolution of flower shape: the role of function, development, and spandrels inErica

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Flowers have been hypothesized to contain either modules of attraction and reproduction, functional modules (pollination‐effecting parts) or developmental modules (organ‐specific). Do pollination specialization and syndromes influence floral modularity? In order to test these hypotheses and answer this question, we focused on the genus Erica: we gathered 3D data from flowers of 19 species with diverse syndromes via computed tomography, and for the first time tested the above‐mentioned hypotheses via 3D geometric morphometrics. To provide an evolutionary framework for our results, we tested the evolutionary mode of floral shape, size and integration under the syndromes regime, and – for the first time – reconstructed the high‐dimensional floral shape of their most recent common ancestor. We demonstrate that the modularity of the 3D shape of generalist flowers depends on development and that of specialists is linked to function: modules of pollen deposition and receipt in bird syndrome, and access‐restriction to the floral reward in long‐proboscid fly syndrome. Only size and shape principal component 1 showed multiple‐optima selection, suggesting that they were co‐opted during evolution to adapt flowers to novel pollinators. Whole floral shape followed an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (selection‐driven) evolutionary model, and differentiated relatively late. Flower shape modularity thus crucially depends on pollinator specialization and syndrome.

show abstract

“…The study of modularity in macroevolution has gained traction in recent years as investigators measure evolutionary and developmental covariation among embryologically or functionally defined modules678. The vertebrate skull has become a favorite model of evolutionary modularity and integration910, perhaps because of its remarkable diversification and specialization in every major vertebrate lineage11.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluctuations in Evolutionary Integration Allow for Big Brains and Disparate Faces

Evans

Waltz

Tagliacollo

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In theory, evolutionary modularity allows anatomical structures to respond differently to selective regimes, thus promoting morphological diversification. These differences can then influence the rate and direction of phenotypic evolution among structures. Here we use geometric morphometrics and phenotypic matrix statistics to compare rates of craniofacial evolution and estimate evolvability in the face and braincase modules of a clade of teleost fishes (Gymnotiformes) and a clade of mammals (Carnivora), both of which exhibit substantial craniofacial diversity. We find that the face and braincase regions of both clades display different degrees of integration. We find that the face and braincase evolve at similar rates in Gymnotiformes and the reverse in Carnivora with the braincase evolving twice as fast as the face. Estimates of evolvability and constraints in these modules suggest differential responses to selection arising from fluctuations in phylogenetic integration, thus influencing differential rates of skull-shape evolution in these two clades.

show abstract

In search of morphological modules: a systematic review

Cited by 102 publications

References 253 publications

Anatomical network analysis of the musculoskeletal system reveals integration loss and parcellation boost during the fins-to-limbs transition

Anatomical network analysis of the musculoskeletal system reveals integration loss and parcellation boost during the fins-to-limbs transition

Modularity and evolution of flower shape: the role of function, development, and spandrels inErica

Fluctuations in Evolutionary Integration Allow for Big Brains and Disparate Faces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About