Where is, in 2017, the evo in evo‐devo (evolutionary developmental biology)?

Abstract

After the inaugural Pan-American-Evo-Devo meeting (2015, Berkeley), I showed how major concerns about evo-devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology) research were demonstrated by a simple, non-biased quantitative analysis of the titles/abstracts of that meeting's talks. Here, I apply the same methodology to the titles/abstracts of the recent Pan-American-Evo-Devo meeting (2017, Calgary). The aim is to evaluate if the concerns raised by me in that paper and by other authors have been addressed and/or if there are other types of differences between the two meetings that may reflect trends within the field of evo-devo. This analysis shows that the proportion of presentations referring to "morphology", "organism", "selection", "adaptive", "phylogeny", and their derivatives was higher in the 2017 meeting, which therefore had a more "organismal" feel. However, there was a decrease in the use of "evolution"/its derivatives and of macroevolutionary terms related to the tempo and mode of evolution in the 2017 meeting. Moreover, the disproportionately high use of genetic/genomic terms clearly shows that evo-devo continues to be mainly focused on devo, and particularly on "Geno", that is, on molecular/genetic studies. Furthermore, the vast majority of animal evo-devo studies are focused only on hard tissues, which are just a small fraction of the whole organism-for example, only 15% of the tissue mass of the human body. The lack of an integrative approach is also evidenced by the lack of studies addressing conceptual/long-standing broader questions, including the links between ecology and particularly behavior and developmental/evolutionary variability and between evo-devo and evolutionary medicine.

Un pluralisme modéré pour le temps des sciences de la nature : irréversibilité et échelles de temps dans les disciplines biologiques

“…(1) makes explicit the fact that often novelties are not absolute discontinuities but can be built on previously existing parts, (2) indicates that they are a phenomenon that affects the evolution of certain lineages without implying that all derived characters are in fact novelties, and (3) requires some kind of ecological function to eventually be coupled with the novelty, although it does not imply a necessary link between novelties and adaptive radiations." (Pigliucci, 2008) According to Pigliucci, the prospects of an explanation of evolutionary novelties by evo-devo are meagre, because evo-devo has been focused much more on development than on evolution and is concentrated on the molecular underpinnings of quantitative traits rather than on the underpinnings of the formation of complex new traits This trend is confirmed by recent quantitative analysis of research in the field (Diogo, 2016(Diogo, , 2018.…”

“…As a synthesis of disciplines, evo-devo contains many research programs. However, empirical research in evo-devo is dominated by the study of development based on developmental genetic concepts, methods and tools; considerations of higher level of organisation and of evolutionary problems are undertaken only by a small part of evo-devo scientists (Diogo, 2016(Diogo, , 2018. At the same time, evo-devo can refer to a theoretical construct that is opposed by some scientists and philosophers to the still dominant paradigm in evolutionary 1 Different meanings have been given to the distinction between novelty and innovation.…”

The second biennial meeting of the Pan‐American Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology

“…This presentation was remarkable because Lynch not only quantitatively characterized the adaptive trait—variation in physiological sensitivity to DNA damage—but also showed that it evolved via an unusual mechanism, for example, a refunctionalized pseudogene that by chance acquired a p53‐responsive cis‐regulatory element. Rui Diogo (Howard) presented a poster, “Evolutionary developmental pathology: a new field of evo‐devo combining anatomy, anthropology, development, genetics, and pathology,” putting into practice some of the ideas articulated in his commentary advocating for more integrative evodevo and for studies linking evodevo with evolutionary medicine (Diogo, ).…”

“…Diogo and others remarked that the first PASEDB meeting reflected a bias in the field toward molecular/genetic developmental studies, to the detriment of evolution, behavior, ecology (Diogo, ). The second meeting had a more organismal feel but still showed a bias toward developmental biology and genetics based on a quantitative analysis of the titles and abstracts (Diogo, ). This is perhaps unsurprising, given the advent of new technologies like CRISPR that have allowed researchers to probe the function of genes in non‐model species, a feat that was much more difficult only 5–6 years ago.…”

How a growing organismal perspective is adding new depth to integrative studies of morphological evolution

“…This argument is antithetical to the way most evolutionary studies are conducted. In fact, it has been argued that there is a dearth of evolutionary analyses within modern Evo‐devo (Diogo, , ). We feel strongly that the synergistic approach of employing experimental model species and comparative analysis of model clades is where the most novel insights will emerge in the coming years.…”