Theoretical Approaches to the Evolution of Development and Genetic Architecture

Rice, Sean H.

doi:10.1196/annals.1438.002

Cited by 52 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 88 publications

(133 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rice's theory is general and subsumes quantitative genetics and population genetics. Rice (2004Rice ( , 2008 has shown how this theory links developmental mechanism with phenotypic evolution via the concept of phenotypic landscapes. Phenotypic landscapes are plots of the value of a phenotypic trait as a function of the underlying causal factors (see also Alberch 1991).…”

Section: Results (A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(c) The phenotypic landscapes for body size and development time Rice (1998Rice ( , 2002Rice ( , 2004Rice ( , 2008 has developed a complete theory of microevolution that is a theoretical elaboration of Price's (1970) theorem. Rice's theory is general and subsumes quantitative genetics and population genetics.…”

Section: Results (A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evolution within these phenotypic landscapes can be predicted by Rice's (2004Rice's ( , 2008 theory, if the distribution of a population on the landscape and the pattern of selection are known.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conflicting processes in the evolution of body size and development time

Nijhout

Roff

Davidowitz

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Body size and development time of Manduca sexta are both determined by the same set of three developmental -physiological factors. These define a parameter space within which it is possible to analyse and explain how phenotypic change is associated with changes in the underlying factors. Body size and development time are determined by the identical set of underlying factors, so they are not independent, but because the mechanisms by which these factors produce each phenotype are different, the two phenotypes are only weakly correlated, and the correlation is context dependent. We use a mathematical model of this mechanism to explore the association between body size and development time and show that the correlation between these two life-history traits can be positive, zero or negative, depending entirely on where in parameter space a population is located, and on which of the underlying factors has a greater variation. The gradient within this parameter space predicts the unconstrained evolutionary trajectory under directional selection on each trait. Calculations of the gradients for body size and development time revealed that these are nearly orthogonal through much of the parameter space. Therefore, simultaneous directional selection on body size and development time can be neither synergistic nor antagonistic but leads to conflicting selection on the underlying developmental parameters.

show abstract

Section: Results (A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Results (A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conflicting processes in the evolution of body size and development time

Nijhout

Roff

Davidowitz

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea championed by many of its practitioners that evo-devo is a mechanistic approach obscures that beyond explaining morphological evolution in terms of changes to developmental mechanisms, explanatory contributions from several other disciplines than developmental biology are needed, requiring scientists to take a balanced approach that does not neglect considerations about historical patterns for questions about causal processes, and that addresses both empirical and theoretical issues (Brigandt and Love 2012a). While some evo-devo biologists contrast explanation in terms of developmental mechanisms with traditional evolutionary theory's explanation in terms of the dynamics of allele frequencies within populations, there are possible connections between developmental and population processes (Rice 2008(Rice , 2012Wagner 2007).…”

Section: Evolutionary Developmental Biology: Integrative and Diversementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even if each of two phenotypes is part of a mechanism (by each phenotype being possessed by concrete organisms), what matters is how the phenotypes differ and the phenotypes' differential behavior across time, which is a complex and unusual aspect of a 'mechanism.' tive genetics, and evolutionary ecology can be components of evo-devo explanations (Rice 2008(Rice , 2012.…”

Section: A Broader Philosophical Conception Of Mechanisms and Mechanimentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Limits of Philosophical Accounts of Mechanistic Explanation

Brigandt

2015

History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is considered a 'mechanistic science,' in that it causally explains morphological evolution in terms of changes in developmental mechanisms. Evo-devo is also an interdisciplinary and integrative approach, as its explanations use contributions from many fields and pertain to different levels of organismal organization. Philosophical accounts of mechanistic explanation are currently highly prominent, and have been particularly able to capture the integrative nature of multifield and multilevel explanations. However, I argue that evo-devo demonstrates the need for a broadened philosophical conception of mechanisms and mechanistic explanation.Mechanistic explanation (in terms of the qualitative interactions of the structural parts of a whole) has been developed as an alternative to the traditional idea of explanation as derivation from laws or quantitative principles. Against the picture promoted by Carl Craver, that mathematical models describe but usually do not explain, my discussion of cases from the strand of evo-devo which is concerned with developmental processes points to qualitative phenomena where quantitative mathematical models are an indispensable part of the explanation. While philosophical accounts have focused on the actual organization and operation of mechanisms, properties of developmental mechanisms that are about how a mechanism reacts to modifications are of major evolutionary significance, including robustness, phenotypic plasticity, and modularity. A philosophical conception of mechanisms is needed that takes into account quantitative changes, transient entities and the generation of novel types of entities, feedback loops and complex interaction networks, emergent properties, and, in particular, functional-dynamical aspects of mechanisms, including functional (as opposed to structural) organization and distributed, system-wide phenomena. I conclude with general remarks on philosophical accounts of explanation.

show abstract