Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Evolution and development of facial bone morphology in threespine sticklebacks

Charles B. Kimmel, Bonnie Ullmann, Charline Walker, Catherine Wilson, Mark Currey, Patrick C. Phillips, Michael A. Bell, John H. Postlethwait, and William A. Cresko
PNAS April 19, 2005 102 (16) 5791-5796; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0408533102
Charles B. Kimmel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bonnie Ullmann
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charline Walker
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine Wilson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Currey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick C. Phillips
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael A. Bell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John H. Postlethwait
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William A. Cresko
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by David B. Wake, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved March 1, 2005 (received for review November 16, 2004)

Related Article

  • This Week in PNAS
    - Apr 19, 2005
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & SI

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    OP morphological variation among Alaskan threespine sticklebacks. (A) A left side view of the head (Alizarin Red staining without clearing). The OP is positioned on the hyoid arch, the most dorsal bone of a DV meristic series (10) that includes the scythe-shaped subopercle (SOP) and three sickle-shaped branchiostegal rays (BR). These bones function in opercular pumping. (B) Dissected, Alizarin Red-stained OPs from anadromous (Anchor River, Upper) and lake (Long Lake, Lower). The examples represent near-extreme high and low cases of variation along the VP axis (C). The sizes are shown as normalized to SL (scale bars, 2 mm). The lines marked JP and VP connect the landmarks J (joint), P (posterior), and V (ventral) that were readily assigned in every case by noting the locations of maximal curvature of the bone. We use the lengths of these lines in shape and size comparisons. (C) A morphospace showing the distribution of OP morphologies from all of the wild-captured Alaskan fish. VPS and JPS are SL-standardized lengths of VP and JP (B), made by taking the residuals of linear regressions of VP length and JP length on standard length (SL) for the lake data set. We excluded the anadromous fish from the regression equation, because the slope of the regression line for the lake fish alone is near 1.0 (Fig. 6). The upper data points are exclusively from anadromous fish (Anchor River, black; Rabbit Slough, gray). The lower data points are exclusively from lake fish (Boot Lake, dark blue; Mud Lake, light blue; Long Lake, orange; Bear Paw Lake, green; Bolo Lake, purple; Whale Lake, red). The theoretical diagonal line passes through the mean of the lake fish, and indicates variation in OP size without a change in shape.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    An early change in allometric development underlies OP evolution. Confocal microscope z stacks are shown as projections, from Alizarin Red-labeled, living, anesthetized larvae. Left side views, anterior to the left, are shown. (A) Detailed views at 7–11 DPF comparing OP morphologies of representative anadromous and lake larvae. The anadromous bones show relatively more prominent DV expansion. (B) Views including neighboring bones at 7–21 DPF in lake fish (the first three are the same individuals as in A). OP, opercle; SOP, subopercle; BR, branchiostegal ray. At the earliest stage, the OP is the only bone developing in the pharyngeal arches; then, other facial bones appear, including the other members of the OP-branchiostegal meristic series in the hyoid arch shown for the adult in Fig. 1 A. Like the OP, the other dermal bones begin development as lines, which then take on their specific shapes.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    Two phases of allometric OP growth differ between anadromous and lake fish. The data are from laboratory-reared fish derived from within-population crosses from Rabbit Slough (anadromous; black points), Bear Paw Lake, and Boot Lake (both lakes combined as red points; we observed no significant development differences between fish from the two lakes). Data were collected from 7 DPF through 260 DPF (anadromous) and through 136 DPF (lake). Statistical comparison (F ratio and P value for anadromous vs. lake) of slopes was performed by analysis of homogeneity of regression (55). (A) Linear–linear VP by JP plots (lengths in mm, not size-standardized). The data from both populations robustly fit straight lines; the slope is significantly higher for the anadromous fish. VPanadromous= –0.23 + 1.72*JPanadromous, r 2=0.99. SE = 0.0109. VPlake= –0.24 + 1.48*JPlake, r 2= 0.99. SE = 0.0200. Test of slopes: F 1, 202= 87.92; P < 0.0001. (B) An early, distinctive, and highly allometric growth phase shows up for both populations in log–log VP by JP plots of the same data. A larger slope means higher allometry (a slope of 1 means isometric growth). We fit two regression lines to each data set: “early period,” <12 DPF, the pair of lines to the left, and “late period,” >11 DPF, pair of lines to the right. Early period: log VPanadromous= 2.31 + 2.66 *log JPanadromous; r 2= 0.94; SE = 0.146. Lake: log VPlake= 1.98 + 2.71 *log JPlake; r 2= 0.96; SE = 0.217. Test of slopes: F 1, 30= 0.052; P = 0.82. Late period: log VPanadromous= 0.32 + 1.25 *log JPanadromous; r 2= 0.99; SE = 0.012. Lake: log VPlake= 0.15 + 1.35 *log JPlake; r 2= 0.99; S.E. = 0.012. Test of slopes: F 1, 197= 21.4; P < 0.0001. The difference in slopes is in the wrong direction to produce the smaller VP length of the adult lake fish by heterochronic acceleration.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    Between-population crosses reveal features of the genetic basis of OP morphology. Morphospace plots are shown as in Figs. 1 and 3. (A) Wild-captured parental populations, a subset of the data also replotted from Fig. 1C (Rabbit Slough, RS, gray; Boot Lake, Bt, red; Bear Paw Lake, BP, green). The means for these distributions of the parental fish OPs are shown by the colored circles in B–F.(B) Laboratory-reared F1 progeny from a lake by lake (BP by Bt) cross. (C–F)F1 (C and E) and F2 (D and F) laboratory-reared progeny from two anadromous by lake crosses, RS by BP (C and D) and RS by Bt (E and F).

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    An OP morphology major-effect locus maps to LG19. LOD score (blue) and percentage of the variance explained (pink) for the size-standardized VP component of OP variation plotted along the entire length of the linkage group are shown. Significant and highly significant marks were determined numerically by using permutation tests of the data across all linkage groups, as was the 95% confidence interval (yellow line) of the main peak by using bootstrap resampling. Data are from the RSxBP F2 progeny shown in Fig. 4D. The presence of two peaks may mean that two QTLs contributing to OP ventral elongation are present on LG19, but also could be due to incorrect assignment of the stn185–187 marker positions. Further analyses will be required.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. OP dimensions for the wild-captured fish
    Group n Areas VPs JPs
    Anadromous 28 2.22 ± 0.42 1.53 ± 0.08 0.16 ± 0.04
    Lake 96 0.00 ± 0.17 0.00 ± 0.04 0.00 ± 0.03
    ANOVA, F 1, 122 400 392 8.68
    P <0.0001 <0.0001 0.004
    • Size standardizations as in Fig. 1. Data are expressed as means ± SE. See Table 2 for a more complete summary. ANOVA statistics, F ratios, and P values are comparisons between Anadromous and Lake fish.

Data supplements

  • Kimmel et al. 10.1073/pnas.0408533102.

    Supporting Information

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    Supporting Figure 6
    Supporting Figure 7
    Supporting Table 2
    Supporting Table 3




    Fig. 6. Opercles (OPs) vary in size but not dramatically in shape among fish from different lakes. (A) Plot of VP length versus JP length (not size-standardized) for the six lakes in the study set. Colors are as in Fig. 1. The points fit a straight line (r2 = 0.89) with a slope of 1.42, indicating that the sizes of the OPs vary substantially whereas the relative dimensions of the bone remain constant (F1, 94 = 728; P < 0.0001). (B) Size-standardized VPS versus JPS plot shows a line (r2 = 0.61) with a slope of 1.05. The value near 1 for the slope indicates that the two dimensions of the bone are co-varying independently of SL; i.e., the OP changes in size but not shape (F1, 94 = 144; P < 0.0001). Particular lakes can occupy different domains along the line (see also Table 2). For example, the normalized Bear Paw Lake OPs (green) are substantially larger than those from Mud Lake (light blue). (C) An overlay of two bones from Fig. 7, representing fairly extreme variation in normalized OP size, i.e., along the diagonal of the morphospace.





    Fig. 7. Two axes of opercle (OP) shape variation. Pictorial representation of a subset of the OP morphology distribution shown in Fig. 1C, selected to show how shapes vary with reference to the two axes, VP and JP. The drawings are size standardized and color-coding is as in Fig. 1C. The upper inset shows where these selected examples fall on the morphospace. The lower inset shows an overlay of two bones where the principal variation is along the VP axis.





     

    Table 2. Opercle dimensions for the wild captured populations

    Group

    n

    SL (mm)

    Area

    (mm2)

    AreaS

    T-K*

    (AreaS)

    VP Length

    (mm)

    VPS

    TK*

    (VPS)

    JP length,

    mm

    JPS

    TK*

    (JPS)

    Anadromous†

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Anchor River

    15

    68.50 ± 0.97

    26.66 ± 0.88

    7.40 ± 0.65

    A

    7.59 ± 0.15

    1.41 ± 0.11

    A

    4.49 ± 0.08

    0.13 ± 0.06

    A

    Rabbit Slough

    13

    67.31 ± 0.56

    26.65 ± 0.49

    7.85 ± 0.52

    A

    7.75 ± 0.28

    1.67 ± 0.09

    A

    4.48 ± 0.05

    0.19 ± 0.05

    A

    Lake

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Whale

    21

    44.89 ± 2.01

    11.21 ± 1.10

    1.11 ± 0.39

    B

    4.39 ± 0.23

    0.18 ± 0.08

    B

    3.25 ± 0.16

    0.15 ± 0.06

    B

    Bear Paw

    15

    46.39 ± 0.71

    11.37 ± 0.43

    0.69 ± 0.34

    BC

    4.47 ± 0.07

    0.13 ± 0.05

    B

    3.36 ± 0.06

    0.19 ± 0.05

    B

    Boot

    15

    51.23 ± 0.95

    12.79 ± 0.55

    0.23 ± 0.46

    BC

    4.88 ± 0.13

    0.13 ± 0.12

    B

    3.45 ± 0.08

    0.02 ± 0.07

    BC

    Bolo

    15

    39.05 ± 0.41

    7.37 ± 0.19

    -0.46 ± 0.17

    CD

    3.62 ± 0.05

    -0.10 ± 0.04

    BC

    2.69 ± 0.04

    -0.09 ± 0.03

    CD

    Long

    15

    54.40 ± 0.65

    13.39 ± 0.48

    -0.39 ± 0.36

    CD

    4.94 ± 0.09

    -0.07 ± 0.07

    BC

    3.51 ± 0.05

    -0.10 ± 0.04

    CD

    Mud

    15

    55.57 ± 0.71

    12.61 ± 0.37

    -1.63 ± 0.16

    D

    4.76 ± 0.07

    -0.35 ± 0.05

    C

    3.44 ± 0.05

    -0.23 ± 0.03

    D

    Size standardizations (AreaS, VPS, and JPS) are as in Fig. 1. The columns show means ± SE.

    *Tukey-Kramer comparisons. Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different (P < 0.05).

    †Anchor River vs. Rabbit Slough comparisons. AreaS : F1,26 = 0.280; P = 0.60. VPS: F1,26 = 3.13; P = 0.09. JPS: F1,36 = 0.443; P = 0.51





    Table 3. Opercle (OP) dimensions for the genetic crosses

    Hybrids

    n

    Generation

    VPS

    mean ± SE

    Variance

    of VPS

    JPS

    mean ± SE

    Variance

    of JPS

    (Lake ´ Lake)

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Whale ´ Boot

    32

    F1

    0.22 ± 0.05

    0.086

    0.29 ± 0.04

    0.041

    Bear Paw ´ Boot

    50

    F1

    1.45 ± 0.05

    0.125

    1.16 ± 0.05

    0.102

    (Anadromous ´ Lake)

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Rabbit S. ´ Bear Paw

    49

    F1

    0.54 ± 0.04

    0.082

    0.03 ± 0.02

    0.021

    Rabbit S. ´ Bear Paw

    99

    F2

    1.03 ± 0.04

    0.141

    0.46 ± 0.03

    0.065

    Rabbit S. ´ Whale

    25

    F1

    0.62 ± 0.04

    0.048

    0.01 ± 0.03

    0.020

    Rabbit S. ´ Whale

    41

    F2

    1.36 ± 0.07

    0.229

    0.40 ± 0.04

    0.057

    Rabbit S. ´ Boot

    25

    F1

    0.87 ± 0.05

    0.055

    0.26 ± 0.03

    0.025

    Rabbit S. ´ Boot

    52

    F2

    1.21 ± 0.06

    0.211

    0.69 ± 0.04

    0.093

    Size standardizations (VPS and JPS lengths) as in Fig. 1. Parental means are given in Table 2.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evolution and development of facial bone morphology in threespine sticklebacks
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Evolution and development of facial bone morphology in threespine sticklebacks
Charles B. Kimmel, Bonnie Ullmann, Charline Walker, Catherine Wilson, Mark Currey, Patrick C. Phillips, Michael A. Bell, John H. Postlethwait, William A. Cresko
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2005, 102 (16) 5791-5796; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0408533102

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Evolution and development of facial bone morphology in threespine sticklebacks
Charles B. Kimmel, Bonnie Ullmann, Charline Walker, Catherine Wilson, Mark Currey, Patrick C. Phillips, Michael A. Bell, John H. Postlethwait, William A. Cresko
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2005, 102 (16) 5791-5796; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0408533102
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: 102 (16)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Large piece of gold
News Feature: Tracing gold's cosmic origins
Astronomers thought they’d finally figured out where gold and other heavy elements in the universe came from. In light of recent results, they’re not so sure.
Image credit: Science Source/Tom McHugh.
Dancers in red dresses
Journal Club: Friends appear to share patterns of brain activity
Researchers are still trying to understand what causes this strong correlation between neural and social networks.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Yeongsik Im.
White and blue bird
Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490