On the origins of novelty in development and evolution

Moczek, Armin P.

doi:10.1002/bies.20754

Cited by 242 publications

(199 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

187

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this case, re-expression of such traits in descendent lineages, or their co-option into novel contexts, may become feasible with only minor evolutionary changes in the underlying developmental genetic network. Indeed, loss and recurrence of complex traits has been demonstrated in a number of cases [65], and co-option of ancestral developmental networks during the genesis of novel complex traits appears to be a ubiquitous feature of developmental evolution [66]. However, it remains unclear whether developmental plasticity and polyphenic development enhance retention and co-option of developmental pathways, or whether both emerge simply as a product of the integrated nature of development in general.…”

Section: Developmental Genetic Basis Of Plastic Traits: Mechanisms Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of developmental plasticity in evolutionary innovation

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explaining the origins of novel traits is central to evolutionary biology. Longstanding theory suggests that developmental plasticity, the ability of an individual to modify its development in response to environmental conditions, might facilitate the evolution of novel traits. Yet whether and how such developmental flexibility promotes innovations that persist over evolutionary time remains unclear. Here, we examine three distinct ways by which developmental plasticity can promote evolutionary innovation. First, we show how the process of genetic accommodation provides a feasible and possibly common avenue by which environmentally induced phenotypes can become subject to heritable modification. Second, we posit that the developmental underpinnings of plasticity increase the degrees of freedom by which environmental and genetic factors influence ontogeny, thereby diversifying targets for evolutionary processes to act on and increasing opportunities for the construction of novel, functional and potentially adaptive phenotypes. Finally, we examine the developmental genetic architectures of environment-dependent trait expression, and highlight their specific implications for the evolutionary origin of novel traits. We critically review the empirical evidence supporting each of these processes, and propose future experiments and tests that would further illuminate the interplay between environmental factors, condition-dependent development, and the initiation and elaboration of novel phenotypes.

show abstract

Section: Developmental Genetic Basis Of Plastic Traits: Mechanisms Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of developmental plasticity in evolutionary innovation

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although evolutionary biologists have developed powerful theoretical frameworks and experimental tools to understand the evolutionary modification of existing traits, we know remarkably little about the ecological, genetic, and developmental mechanisms-and the interactions between them-that mediate the origin and subsequent diversification of novel features. In fact, even the terminology is often misleading, and considerable debate exists regarding exactly what constitutes novelty in evolution (3). For example, Mueller and Wagner (4) define a novelty as ''a structure that is neither homologous to any structure in the ancestral species nor homonomous to any other structure in the same organism.''…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential recruitment of limb patterning genes during development and diversification of beetle horns

Moczek

Rose

2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

185

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The origins of novel complex phenotypes represent one of the most fundamental, yet largely unresolved, issues in evolutionary biology. Here we explore the developmental genetic regulation of beetle horns, a class of traits that lacks obvious homology to traits in other insects. Furthermore, beetle horns are remarkably diverse in their expression, including sexual dimorphisms, male dimorphisms, and interspecific differences in location of horn expression. At the same time, beetle horns share aspects of their development with that of more traditional appendages. We used larval RNA interference-mediated gene function analysis of 3 cardinal insect appendage patterning genes,dachshund, homothorax, and Distalless, to investigate their role in development and diversification of beetle horns within and between species. Transcript depletion of all 3 patterning genes generated phenotypic effects very similar to those documented in previous studies that focused on general insect development. In addition, we found that Distal-less and homothorax, but not dachshund, regulate horn expression in a species-, sex-, body region-, and body size-dependent manner. Our results demonstrate differential co-option of appendage patterning genes during the evolution and radiation of beetle horns. Furthermore, our results illustrate that regulatory genes whose functions are otherwise highly conserved nevertheless retain the capacity to acquire additional functions, and that little phylogenetic distance appears necessary for the evolution of sex-and species-specific differences in these functions.

show abstract

“…For any structure there are some precursors; at least some components of a novel structure (e.g., tissues, cell differentiation patterns) were already present in the ancestor. Indeed, we may be surprised by how much novelty was generated by small developmental changes and minor rearrangements of existing features (Moczek 2008). As a result, there is possibly nothing but a continuum between non-novelty and novelty.…”

Section: The Dynamics Of Scientific Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dynamics of Scientific Concepts: The Relevance of Epistemic Aims and Values

Brigandt¹

2012

Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The philosophy of science that grew out of logical positivism tended to construe scientific knowledge in terms of set of interconnected beliefs about the world, such as theories and observation statements. Confirmation was construed as a logical relation between observation statements and theoretical statements. This was dubbed the 'context of justification', to be contrasted with the context of discovery, where discovery was not generally deemed to be a rational process and thus not a concern for philosophy. During the last few decades this vision of philosophy of science has changed. Nowadays discovery (e.g., in experimental biology) is seen as intimately tied to confirmation and explanation (Brigandt 2011c). Science is not just conceived of as a set of axiomatic systems, but as a dynamic process based on the various practices of individual scientists and the institutional settings of science (Brigandt 2011a). Two features particularly influence the dynamics of scientific knowledge: epistemic standards and aims. An existing standard (be it a methodological standard, an evidential standard, or a standard of explanatory adequacy) accounts for why old beliefs had to be abandoned and new beliefs came to be accepted. At the same time, standards are subject to change as well. Epistemic aims The relevance of epistemic aims and values for belief change has been previously recognized. My paper intends to make a similar point for scientific concepts, both by studying how an individual concept changes (in its semantic properties) and by viewing epistemic aims and values tied to individual concepts. In a recent publication (Brigandt 2010b), I have presented my view that a scientific concept consists of three components of content: (1) the concept's reference, (2) the concept's inferential role, and (3) the epistemic goal pursued by the concept's use. In the course of history a concept can change in any of these components (possibly with one component changing while the others are stable), at one point in time these components of 1 Even when using a post-positivist framework that in addition to statements and theories acknowledges models and accounts of mechanisms, it is important to bear in mind that all the former are representations to be distinguished from epistemic aims. While my discussion focuses on epistemic aims and values in science, I do not think that a defensible distinction between epistemic and other aims and values can be drawn. In current biomedical research (e.g., as conducted by pharmaceutical companies) aims and values that are intuitively epistemic and intuitively non-epistemic are so entangled in the generation of knowledge that they have to be studied together. The question is not whether a value is epistemic or non-epistemic but whether it is licit (including socially desirable). This has been emphasized by studies of the social dimensions of scientific knowledge and feminist philosophy of science. THE DYNAMICS OF SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS3 content can vary across different users of the term. The first t...

show abstract

On the origins of novelty in development and evolution

Cited by 242 publications

References 100 publications

The role of developmental plasticity in evolutionary innovation

The role of developmental plasticity in evolutionary innovation

Differential recruitment of limb patterning genes during development and diversification of beetle horns

The Dynamics of Scientific Concepts: The Relevance of Epistemic Aims and Values

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About