Banner
    Three Waves Of Innovation In Vertebrate Evolution
    By ... ... | August 20th 2011 05:16 AM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About ...

    ... Now at a new blog, called The Beast, the Bard and the Bot....

    View ...'s Profile

    A new study, published in Science, analyzed regulatory elements in the vertebrate genome and found three waves of evolutionary innovation in the evolution of vertebrates. Many important evolutionary changes have their roots in changes in regulatory elements, not necessarily in the occurrence of new protein-coding genes. So, it’s not the change in genes, but rather the change in gene regulation that spurred many events in vertebrate evolution.

    Through computational methods, this new study searched for DNA sequences that remained the same in species that have diverged (so-called conserved sequences), and in doing so, the researchers identified millions of regulatory elements. Then, by comparing sequences of species whose evolutionary lineages diverged at different times, they were able to figure out when a particular conserved sequence first appeared.

    Their findings provides an indication for three distinct phases in vertebrate evolution. Each phase is characterized by changes in certain biological processes. As most regulatory elements lie closely to the genes they govern, the researchers assigned each conserved element to the closest gene. After classifying the genes in broad categories, three waves of innovation can be discerned.

    The first wave took place about 500 million years ago, and is, in addition to changes affecting developmental genes, distinguished by a great enrichment in transcription factors, which bind to DNA and regulate entire groups of genes (see figure 1).

       

    Figure 1: General illustration of transcription factor.

    (Source: University of Illinois, The Sinha Lab)

       

    The second wave involved genes that affect cell-to-cell communication, such as genes coding for receptor proteins that are located in the cell membrane and receive signals from other cells (see figure 2). These changes happened 300 to 100 million years ago, and happened independently in the lineage of fish and the lineage of animals with amniotic eggs (birds, reptiles and mammals).

       

    Figure 2: General illustration of membrane receptor.

    (Source: Wikimedia Commons, author: Laozhengzz)

       

    The third wave occurred in placental mammals about 100 million years ago. Here, the innovations took effect in the signal pathways within cells, tweaking the complicated communication between the molecules that coordinate cellular activities.

    In addition to this, the researchers also had a look at the development of body hair. Hundreds of genes are involved here, and many of those genes have been around for quite some time, but at about 250 million years ago, a peak in regulatory innovations concerning these genes was noticed.

       

    Reference

    Lowe, C.B.; Kellis, M.; Siepel, A.; Raney, B.J.; Clamp, M.; Salama, S.R.; Kinglsey, D.M.; Lindblad-Toh, K. and Haussler, D. (2011). Three Periods of Regulatory Innovation During Vertebrate Evolution. Science. 333(6045), pp. 1019 – 1024. Doi:10.1126/science.1202702.

    University of California, Santa Cruz. University News. 

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    So, how does this square with the concept of gene-centric evolution?  If the gene's haven't actually changed, then it would argue against the gene being the fundamental unit of selection (in a direct sense).  It obviously is a (kind of) unit of selection with respect to containing the base information needed by the organism, but if gene expression is the culmination of this process, then it would increase the argument that it is the organism itself that is ultimately selected (via sexual selection as a more significant driving force).
    G.D.W.
    Depends on how you would define a 'gene'. A gene could be considered as more than just the protein-coding sequence, and include the regulatory sequences. Promotors, enhancers, binding sites, ... are all present in the DNA sequence, but don't get decoded into a protein, although they do exert their influence on the entire process. So, the question is: should these be included in the definition of a 'gene' or not?
    Gerhard Adam
    If we start including everything into the definition, then we haven't actually defined anything useful.  Since the DNA sequence is insufficient, and the gene is insufficient, then we invariably include more and more elements which represent something similar to the old planetary epicycles.  At it's very best, its a poor definition.