Previous Article |
Table of Contents
| Next Article
Vol. 97, Issue 1, 212-216, January 4, 2000
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University,
165 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511
Communicated by Francis H. Ruddle, Yale University, New Haven,
CT, November 1, 1999 (received for review March 2, 1999)
Heterochrony, the relative change of developmental timing, is one
of the major modes of macroevolutionary change; it identifies temporally disassociated units of developmental evolution. Here, we
report the results of a fine-scale temporal study for the expression of
the developmental gene hairy and morphological
development in three species of Drosophila, D.
melanogaster, D. simulans, and D.
pseudoobscura. The results suggest that between and among closely related species, temporal displacement of ontogenetic trajectory is detected even at the earliest stage of development. Overall, D. simulans shows the earliest expression,
followed by D. melanogaster, and then by D.
pseudoobscura. Setting D. melanogaster as the
standard, we find the approximate time to full expression is
accelerated by 13 min, 48 s in D. simulans and
retarded by 24 min in D. pseudoobscura. Morphologically,
again with D. melanogaster setting the standard,
initiation of cellularization is faster in D. simulans
by 15 min, 42 s; and initiation of morphogenesis is faster in
D. simulans by 18 min, 7 s. These results seem to be consistent with the finding that the approximate time to full expression of hairy is accelerated by 13 min, 48 s
in D. simulans. On the other hand, the same
morphological events are delayed by 5 min, 32 s, and by 11 min,
32 s, respectively, in D. pseudoobscura. These
delays are small, compared with the 24-min delay in full expression.
The timing changes, in total, seem consistent with continuous phyletic
evolution of temporal trajectories. Finally, we speculate that
epigenetic interactions of hairy expression timing and
cell-cycle timing may have led to morphological differences in the
terminal system of the larvae.
Traditionally, evolutionary biology has
delineated two types of processes in organismal evolution (1). The
first is microevolution, the process of within-species change of the
genetic composition of a given population (i.e., gene frequency
change); and the second is macroevolution, the accumulation of
microevolutionary changes that lead to fixed differences between
different species of organisms (i.e., diversification). Although the
process of microevolution has been well defined and extensively
studied, the process of macroevolutionary change has been far less
studied. Gould (2) has recognized two major modes of macroevolutionary
change: innovation, or the appearance of new characters, and
heterochrony, the shifts in the timing of the characters in ontogenetic
development. Such heterochronic shifts can lead to lineages with
truncated development, in which juveniles reach sexual maturity, or
larval characters are retained in adults (e.g., the classic case of
Plethodon ocellatum; see ref. 3).
The concept of heterochrony is important; it unifies in a process model
the diversity of developmental phenomena. With the explosion of
knowledge from developmental biology, recent authors have reiterated
the importance of studying heterochrony (e.g., see refs. 4-6). In
fact, many studies (7-12) currently emphasize and use heterochrony to
describe patterns of molecular development, and other studies show
that, even among closely related species, a great many differences are
observed in gene expression (13, 14). Furthermore, such changes in
developmental timing are likely to be found in the early as well as the
later stages of development (15). The detection or the description of
heterochrony also suggests that the temporal trajectories of those
characters or genes are disassociated from the temporal trajectories of
other ontogenetic processes (15). Therefore, the measurement of
heterochrony also identifies "units" of developmental evolution.
Although the concept of heterochrony has been used to describe changes
in the developmental program, there has been little attempt to study
the process of heterochrony, that is, what kinds of genetic
changes and selective processes lead to heterochronic development. The
first requirement is the characterization of heterochronic changes at
the molecular level (as emphasized in ref. 6). For example, Patel
et al. (16) suggest that the changes in the germ type of
coleopteran species is related to heterochronic changes in the
expression of the patterning genes relative to the early morphological
development genes. Second, the study of the process of heterochrony
requires temporally fine-scaled observations within closely related
species. Comparisons at large scales, e.g., across phyla, and through
coarse sampling of time periods will emphasize and reveal only
punctuated patterns of differences that cannot be used to infer
processes. The tempo and mode of developmental timing changes will be
apparent only when we obtain data at fine-scale levels. In this paper,
we report the results of such a fine-scale temporal study for the
developmental gene hairy in Drosophila.
The hairy gene belongs to the pair-rule class within the
hierarchy of early developmental genes, and its expression pattern follows the pair-rule spatial pattern: seven periodic bands of expression along the anterior-posterior axis (17). It is one of several
pair-rule loci whose expression is directly regulated by upstream gap
proteins, including hunchback, Krüppel, giant, knirps, and other
as-yet-unidentified factors (18-20). Also, unlike other pair-rule
genes, hairy does not seem to be autoregulated (21). The
periodic stripes of hairy expression provide the first indication of the segmented body plan, and they establish the prepattern for further regulation of downstream genes. The sequence structure of hairy in D. melanogaster has been
determined by Rushlow et al. (22); the gene encodes a 337-aa
protein that functions both in the embryo segmentation body plan and in
the adult bristle patterning. The major transcript is coded by three
exons that are spaced by two introns, 1020-bp and 136-bp long, in
D. melanogaster. The hairy-encoded protein
includes a basic helix-loop-helix domain that shows similarity to the
N-myc protooncogene (23). Evidence suggests that
hairy directly regulates the
expression of the secondary pair-rule gene fushi tarazu by
repression and that it interacts with other pair-rule genes (24).
Our strategy in this project was to use finely timed, whole-mount
in situ hybridization to assay the temporal trajectory of hairy gene expression in three different species of
Drosophila, D. melanogaster, D. simulans, and D. pseudoobscura. In addition, we obtained comparative timing data on
morphological development with the use of microscopy of living embryos.
Here we report two different kinds of timing changes among
Drosophila species. The first is the change, under
controlled conditions, in hairy expression timing with
respect to absolute time. The absolute timing differences indicate
changes at the biochemical and gene-regulation level, but not
disassociation of developmental units. The second is heterochrony in
the classic sense, the relative changes in hairy gene
expression with respect to cell-cycle-dependent morphological
development. The results shown below suggest that, even at the earliest
stage of development, temporal displacement of ontogenetic trajectory between sister species is detected at the molecular level.
In Situ Hybridization.
Species-specific probes were generated from PCR-cloned genomic
hairy sequences. Fragments, approximately 200 bp long, were generated from the 5' end of the second exon (near the basic
helix-loop-helix region of hairy) by using PCR synthesis
and digoxigenin-labeled dUTP (Boehringer Mannheim). Spatial expression
patterns of hairy were detected by whole-mount in
situ hybridizations with a protocol adopted from Tautz et
al. (25). Specifically, the fixation time and treatment with
proteinase K were varied for each species and egg batch (based on
morphological examination). In particular, we found that maintaining a
constant 25°C between hybridization reactions was critical for
reproducible results. All hybridization assays were done in small
batches, and the results were collected for distinct and cleanly
hybridized batches only. The classification of the expression stages of
the embryos was carried out under a dissecting microscope with a pulled
pipette for micromanipulation.
Timed Egg Collection.
The embryos (at 25°C) were collected in small batches for a 30-min
period after the initial evacuation of predeveloped eggs to ensure
quasi-synchronization (initial collection was for 1 hr; those were
discarded, and the discarding procedure was repeated once). The
collection medium was Instant Drosophila Blue Media with grape juice
and yeast (Carolina Biological). These embryos were incubated at 25°C
for a fixed period (see Results for the durations),
dechorionated with 3% sodium hypochlorite (we found that 1 min,
45 s was optimal), washed with Ringer's solution, and fixed in
paraformaldehyde according to the method described by Tautz et
al. (25). Storage of fixed embryos in 100% methanol at 4°C for
up to 3 months did not affect our ability to detect gene expression.
Morphological Development.
Embryos were collected in a quasi-synchronized state as described
above; they were dechorionated by hand, and were mounted alive in
halocarbon oil (Sigma), and supplied with oxygen through gas-permeable
tubing as described (26). Briefly, the embryos were attached to a cover
glass with egg glue (a small piece of cellophane tape, dissolved in
heptane), such that any egg placed on the glass would not float. Eggs
were placed single-file and as close as possible to the oxygen supply
(we found that the distance from the oxygen supply line introduces
variance in some species). The cover glass was mounted on an aluminum
slide with vacuum grease. Gas-permeable tubing was placed around the
mounted eggs to supply oxygen. The eggs were covered with halocarbon
oil (weight 30 and 700 in a 1:1 mixture; Sigma), and a second cover
glass was placed over the arrangement. The entire microscope chamber
was temperature regulated at 25°C. Oxygen was supplied from a gas
bottle at defined flow rates, measured by counting the number of air
bubbles formed in a back-pressure, fixed-volume water bottle. The
morphological stages were identified by using the classification scheme
of Campos-Ortega and Hartenstein (27). In our data, we have used three
clearly distinct landmarks, stages 3, 5, and 6.
In Situ Hybridizations.
As described above, the embryos collected in each time period were
hybridized in situ in small batches. Table
1 shows the number of embryos assayed
for each species and each time period. The in situ
hybridized embryos are classified as stage 1, no expression; stage 2, partial expression (just before the separation of stripes 3 and 4);
stage 3, full expression; and stage 4, morphogenesis (Fig.
1). The total number of embryos assayed in each period
varied considerably for two reasons: (i) we discarded any
batch of in situ hybridizations that did not yield
morphologically clean results; and (ii) we over-sampled
certain critical periods. Table 1 shows the raw data and Fig.
2 shows the average stage for each species, plotted as a
function of time.
Evolution
Molecular heterochrony in the early development
of Drosophila
![]()
Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
Materials and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
![]()
Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Table 1.
Results from in situ hybridization of
hairy probe to three species of
Drosophila

View larger version (106K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Four stages are identified for hairy expression in
Drosophila. Stage 1 (no expression) is not shown.
(A) Beginning of stage 2; hairy
expression starts as a broad midband expression on the ventral side.
(B) Stage 2, typical partial expression.
(C) Stage 3, full expression, marked by the separation
of the third and fourth stripes. (D) Stage 4, morphogenesis; formation of the cephalic furrow is indicated by the
arrowhead.

View larger version (20K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
The expression stage (averaged) of hairy, plotted
against the period (hr) since egg deposition. (See Fig. 1 and the text
for definition of the stages. Average stages for three species are
plotted. ×, D. melanogaster;
, D.
simulans; and
, D. pseudoobscura.
Broken lines indicate 95% confidence interval.
|
Morphological Observations. Our observations of morphological development through vital photomicrography are shown in Table 2. We have concentrated on three landmarks, polar bud formation, initiation of cellularization, and initiation of morphogenesis (cephalic furrow formation), because these events show the most discrete and distinct timing. Polar bud formation, initiation of cellularization, and initiation of morphogenesis correspond to stages 3, 5, and 6b, respectively, as described by Campos-Ortega and Hartenstein (27). In Table 2, we use the polar bud formation as the zero-time point and show the average time (SE in parentheses) to the two subsequent landmarks. The timing shown for these two latter events in D. melanogaster is consistent with that reported previously (27, 30).
|
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Heterochrony has been most widely studied in terms of morphological evolution, especially with respect to terminal characters (for recent examples, see refs. 31-35). However, Raff (15) has pointed out that heterochrony can be found in earlier as well as in later stages of development. Indeed, changes in developmental timing in the early stages of ontogeny has been described in many studies (6, 36-39). Furthermore, Richardson et al. (40) argue that previous notions of phylotypic stages are based on an incomplete analysis of comparative data, and they suggest that there are no particularly conserved stages of development. In our study, we show that statistically significant developmental timing changes can be detected in the earliest part of the ontogenetic trajectory; hairy is one of the first zygotically expressed genes. Klingenberg (29) notes that modern developmental biology resurrects Haeckel's original meaning of heterochrony (reversals in the order of appearance), compared with the speeding-up or the slowing-down of a particular trajectory. We note that our measurement of heterochrony is a quantitative measurement of the temporal trajectory at the molecular level; it is not merely a measurement of the qualitative sequence of gene expression.
Is there a functional significance to the changes in the temporal trajectory of hairy gene expression? In our measurements, we found another change in the expression pattern (heterotropy in the expanded sense; see ref. 41) in addition to the changes in relative timing. In both D. melanogaster and D. simulans, partial expression of an eighth stripe can be observed in the late stages of gene expression (Fig. 4). This partial expression was also noted by Yu and Pick (42). Despite our extensive sampling in the late stages (Table 1), we failed to detect any eighth stripe expression in D. pseudoobscura. We are currently uncertain whether the failure of eighth stripe expression has any further morphological consequences. However, cuticle preparations of the first-instar larvae seem to suggest that the anal pads of D. pseudoobscura larvae are enlarged, compared with those of D. melanogaster, which is consistent with observations that suggest anal pads as the default fate of this region (43). Therefore, the partial expression of pair-rule genes may impart a segmental identity to the terminal system, resulting in reduced anal pads in D. melanogaster and D. simulans. However, the data are cursory, and further verification is needed.
|
We also suggest that the absence of eighth stripe expression in
D. pseudoobscura is consistent with changes in the timing of
the expression trajectory. Drosophila starts out as a
syncytial embryo, with no cell walls separating the nuclei. Cell walls
initiate at stage 5, and complete at stage 6 (between the 13th and 14th cell division). The completion of cellularization coincides closely with the last expression stages of hairy. As we noted above,
hairy expression in D. pseudoobscura is
24 min
delayed, compared with D. melanogaster, whereas the
completion of cellularization is delayed only
11 min. Therefore, we
postulate that the eighth stripe is not expressed in D. pseudoobscura because the process is interrupted by the completion
of the cell wall, which may inhibit the gradient-dependent
combinatorial regulation of pair-rule genes (21, 44). Similar
epigenetic interactions of temporal processes have been suggested as
diversifying mechanisms in other studies (45, 46). We currently do not
know the molecular mechanism by which the temporal expression of
hairy is controlled. Jost (47) has reported that the
Drosophila hydei fushi-tarazu gene injected into
D. melanogaster expresses according to D. melanogaster timing. However, it is unknown whether the regulatory
elements respond differently in an inter-specific environment. Our
preliminary data (unpublished material) suggest that stripe-controlling
elements of hairy have diverged significantly in D. pseudoobscura, compared with the levels of divergence seen between
D. melanogaster and Drosophila
virilis. However, further data are needed for causal verification.
In summary, we report heterochronic change in the expression trajectory of a developmental gene in the earliest stage of development. The degree of change seems to be consistent with continuous phyletic evolution of temporal trajectories. We speculate that epigenetic interactions of hairy expression timing and cell-cycle timing may have led to morphological differences in the terminal system of the larvae. These results suggest to us that epigenetic interactions of temporal trajectories between molecular cascades can be an important diversifying mechanism at the macroevolutionary level.
| |
Acknowledgements |
|---|
We thank Patricia Liljelund and Kavita Nayar for their initial work in the cloning of hairy from different species of Drosophila. We also thank J. Powell for helpful comments. This work was supported in part by a Sloan Foundation Young Investigator Award to J.K.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
* To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail: junhyong.kim{at}yale.edu.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Futuyma, D. J. (1986) Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA). |
| 2. | Gould, S. J. (1977) Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA). |
| 3. | de Beer, G. R. (1930) Embryology and Ancestors (Clarendon, Oxford, U.K.). |
| 4. | Gould, S. J. (1992) BioEssays 14, 275-279[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 5. | Slack, J. M. W., Holland, P. W. H. & Graham, C. F. (1993) Nature (London) 361, 490-492[CrossRef][Medline] . |
| 6. | Richardson, M. K. (1995) Dev. Biol. 172, 412-421[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 7. | Evans, M. M. S., Passas, H. J. & Poethig, R. S. (1994) Development (Cambridge, U.K.) 120, 1971-1981[Abstract]. |
| 8. |
Patel, N. H.
(1994)
Science
266,
581-590 |
| 9. | Swalla, B. J., White, M. E., Zhou, J. & Jeffery, W. R. (1994) Dev. Genet. (Amsterdam) 15, 51-63. |
| 10. | Wiltshire, R. J. E., Murfet, I. C. & Reid, J. B. (1994) J. Evol. Biol. 7, 447-465[CrossRef][ISI]. |
| 11. | Zakany, J., Gerard, M., Favier, B. & Duboule, D. (1997) EMBO J. 16, 4393-4402[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 12. | Slack, F. & Ruvkun, G. (1997) Annu. Rev. Genet. 31, 611-634[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 13. | Dickinson, W. J. (1980) J. Mol. Evol. 16, 73-94[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 14. | Espifanio, J. M. & Philipp, D. P. (1994) Dev. Genet. (Amsterdam) 15, 119-128. |
| 15. | Raff, R. A. (1996) The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago). |
| 16. | Patel, N. H., Condron, B. G. & Zinn, K. (1994) Nature (London) 367, 429-434[CrossRef][Medline] . |
| 17. |
Ingham, P. W., Howard, K. R. & Ish-Horowicz, D.
(1985)
Genes Dev.
2,
1037-1046 |
| 18. | Ingham, P. W., Ish-Horowicz, D. & Howard, K. R. (1986) EMBO J. 5, 1527-1537. |
| 19. | Hooper, K., Parkhurst, S. & Ish-Horowicz, D. (1989) Development 107, 489-504[Abstract]. |
| 20. | Langeland, J. A. & Carroll, S. B. (1994) Development 117, 585-596[Abstract]. |
| 21. | Carroll, S. B. (1990) Cell 60, 9-16[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 22. | Rushlow, C. A., Hogan, A., Pinchin, S. M., Howe, K. M., Lardelli, M. & Ish-Horowicz, D. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 3095-3103[ISI][Medline] . |
| 23. |
Wainwright, S. M. & Ish-Horowicz, D.
(1992)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
12,
2475-2483 |
| 24. | Carroll, S. B. & Scott, M. P. (1986) Cell 45, 113-126[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 25. | Tautz, D., Hulskamp, M. & Sommer, R. J. (1992) in In Situ Hybridization: A Practical Approach, ed. Wilkinson, D. G. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York), pp. 61-73. |
| 26. | Kiehart, D. P., Montague, R. A., Rickoll, W. L., Foard, D. & Thomas, G. H. (1994) in Drosophila melanogaster: Practical Uses in Cell and Molecular Biology, eds. Goldstein, L. S. B. & Fryberg, E. A. (Academic, New York), pp. 507-532. |
| 27. | Campos-Ortega, J. A. & Hartenstein, V. (1985) The Embryonic Development of Drosophila melanogaster (Springer, New York). |
| 28. |
Rice, S. H.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
94,
907-912 |
| 29. | Klingenberg, C. P. (1998) Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 73, 79-123[Medline] . |
| 30. | Bownes, M. (1975) J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 33, 789-801[Medline] . |
| 31. | Strathmann, R. R., Fenaux, L. & Strathmann, M. F. (1992) Evolution 46, 972-986[CrossRef]. |
| 32. | Reilly, S. M. & Altig, R. (1996) Copeia 296, 29-41. |
| 33. | Fiorello, C. V. & German, R. Z. (1997) Evolution 51, 250-261. |
| 34. | Villani, P. J. & Demason, D. A. (1997) Am. J. Bot. 84, 1323-1336[Abstract]. |
| 35. | Schmidt, A. & Wake, M. H. (1998) J. Morphol. 236, 233-246[CrossRef]. |
| 36. | Wray, G. & McClay, D. R. (1989) Evolution 43, 803-813[CrossRef]. |
| 37. | Collazo, A. (1994) Evolution 48, 2037-2045. |
| 38. | Duboule, D. (1994) Development Suppl. (Cambridge, U.K.) 135-142. |
| 39. | Wray, G. A. (1995) in Evolutionary Change and Heterochrony, ed. McNamara, K. J. (Wiley, New York), pp. 197-223. |
| 40. | Richardson, M. K., Hanken, J., Gooneratne, M. L., Pieau, C., Raynaud, A., Selwood, L. & Wright, G. M. (1997) Anat. Embryol. 196, 91-106[CrossRef][Medline] . |
| 41. | Zelditch, M. L. & Fink, W. L. (1996) Paleobiology 22, 241-254[Abstract]. |
| 42. | Yu, Y. & Pick, L. (1995) Mech. Dev. 50, 163-175[CrossRef][Medline] . |
| 43. | Jurgens, G. & Hartenstein, V. (1993) in The Development of Drosophila melanogaster, eds. Bate, M. & Martinez-Arias, A. (Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press, Plainview, NY), pp. 687-701. |
| 44. | Lehmann, R. (1988) Development Suppl. (Cambridge, U.K.) , pp. 17-27. |
| 45. | Dolle, P., Dierich, A., Lemeur, M., Schimmang, T., Schuhbaur, B., Chambon, P. & Duboule, D. (1993) Cell 75, 431-441[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 46. | Blanco, M. J., Misof, B. Y. & Wagner, G. P. (1998) Dev. Genes Evol. 208, 175-187[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] . |
| 47. | Jost, W., Yu, Y., Pick, L., Preiss, A. & Maier, D. (1995) Roux's Arch. Dev. Biol. 205, 160-170[CrossRef]. |
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
![]() |
J. A. Helms and S. A. Brugmann The origins of species-specific facial morphology: the proof is in the pigeon Integr. Comp. Biol., September 1, 2007; 47(3): 338 - 342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. J. McNamara and M. L. McKinney Heterochrony, disparity, and macroevolution Paleobiology, June 1, 2005; 31(2_Suppl): 17 - 26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. A. Wray, M. W. Hahn, E. Abouheif, J. P. Balhoff, M. Pizer, M. V. Rockman, and L. A. Romano The Evolution of Transcriptional Regulation in Eukaryotes Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2003; 20(9): 1377 - 1419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||