Developmental Noise and Ecological Opportunity Across Space Can Release Constraints on the Evolution of Plasticity

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Developmental Noise and Ecological Opportunity Across Space Can Release Constraints on the Evolution of Plasticity DOI: 10.1111/ede.12305 RESEARCH Developmental noise and ecological opportunity across space can release constraints on the evolution of plasticity Jeremy Draghi1,2,3 1Department of Biology, Brooklyn College CUNY, Brooklyn, New York Abstract 2The Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, Phenotypic plasticity is a potentially definitive solution to environment New York heterogeneity, driving biologists to understand why it is not ubiquitous in 3Department of Biological Sciences, nature. While costs and constraints may limit the success of plasticity, we are Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia still far from a complete theory of when these limitations actually proscribe Correspondence adaptive plasticity. Here I use a simple model of plasticity incorporating Jeremy Draghi, Department of Biological developmental noise to explore the competitive and evolutionary relationships Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg 24061, VA. of specialist and generalist genotypes spreading across a heterogeneous Email: [email protected] landscape. Results show that plasticity can arise in the context of specialism, preadapting genotypes to later evolve toward plastic generalism. Developmental Funding information NSF, Grant/Award Number: 1714550 noise helps a mutant with imperfect plasticity successfully compete against its ancestor, providing an evolutionary path by which subsequent mutations can refine plasticity toward its optimum. These results address how the complex selection pressures across a heterogeneous environment can help evolution find paths around constraints arising from developmental mechanisms. 1 | INTRODUCTION et al., 2011), and invasion success (Davidson, Jennions, & Nicotra, 2011), placing it at the core of an emerging, Phenotypic plasticity is the development or modification of predictive theory of the determinants of the rate of evolution. traits in response to environmental cues. Adaptive plasticity Understanding the limits of plasticity is a persistent is common but not ubiquitous (Palacio‐López, Beckage, challenge in evolutionary biology because the issue Scheiner, & Molofsky, 2015), and biologists feel the lack of a requires substantial attention to ecology, life‐history, predictive theory for when plasticity should evolve when and development. Ecology provides both the stick and the they contemplate the limits to species’ resilience to environ- carrot, providing both the need for distinct phenotypes mental change (e.g., Ashander, Chevin, & Baskett, 2016). across a heterogeneous environment and the informative Plasticity represents both a product of adaption and a cues necessary to produce the correct phenotypes. Life‐ precursor to further change. Plasticity is one solution to histories can limit the reliability of this information environmental heterogeneity, and a number of theorists have because movement preceding reproduction or metamor- pushed toward a synthetic theory that explains when phosis can divorce past cues from the organism’s adult plasticity will emerge and preclude other results like environment (Scheiner, 2013). The limitations imposed genetically differentiated local adaptation, stochastic bet‐ by dispersal from the natal environment depend on the hedging, or simply extinction (e.g., Bull, 1987; Scheiner, lags and costs intrinsic to the developmental system: 2014b; Svardal, Rueffler, & Hermisson, 2011; Tufto, 2015). behaviors might adjust rapidly to changes in cues, while Plasticity has also been linked to speciation (Pfennig morphology might be less malleable. Efforts to review the et al., 2010; Schneider & Meyer, 2017), innovation (Moczek field have produced taxonomies of the various costs that Evolution & Development. 2019;e12305. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ede © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1of12 https://doi.org/10.1111/ede.12305 2of12 | DRAGHI reduce the realized benefit of plasticity and the (Starrfelt & Kokko, 2012). Microbial experiments have been constraints that prevent it from arising at all (DeWitt, particularly influential by illustrating how cells can use Sih & Wilson, 1998; Murren et al., 2015). While some stochastic variability to create a diverse portfolio of costs are obvious—for example, the need to produce a phenotypes—e.g., nongrowing, resistant spores and cells sensory organ—comparative work has mostly failed to competent for natural genetic transformation (Veening, find clear costs that make plasticity less competitive than Smits, & Kuipers, 2008). While most attention has focused closely related nonplastic specialists (Auld, Agrawal, & on understanding how this stochastic variability could Relyea, 2009; Van Buskirk & Steiner, 2009). Attention function as a form of bet‐hedging (Starrfelt & Kokko, 2012), has, therefore, shifted to understanding how constraints recent experiments point to more subtle benefits to might restrict the evolution of plasticity to certain traits, variability and highlight its potential role in stimulating, taxa, and environments. rather than slowing, adaptation (Bódi et al., 2017). The complex and poorly understood effects on the Although plasticity and developmental instability evolution of plasticity stemming from these diverse have often been considered separately, a recent finding ecological and organismal factors motivate theoretical of a positive correlation between these traits in Arabi- research. Exploration of extremely simple models can dopsis phenotypes (Tonsor, Elnaccash, & Scheiner, 2013) provide structured hypotheses for where constraints might has helped to spark interest in their joint consideration. come from and how experiments can be designed to A recent modeling paper showed how instability arising measure which constraints actually matter for explaining from genetic factors could evolve, and that evolved the distribution of plasticity across nature. The model robustness in development actually constrained the presented here stems from a tradition in which modeling of evolution of plasticity (Draghi, in review). The core plastic development is made extremely simple in favor of result of this paper was that developmental noise focusing attention on complexity arising from environments loosened pleiotropic constraints preventing plastic mu- and life‐histories. Here, an organism’s genotype determines tants from successfully competing against their parent the slope and intercept terms of a linear equation, with genotypes, allowing a population to evolve a plastic plasticity emerging as the product of the slope and the response to environmental heterogeneity. This prior difference in cues provided by each environment. While work was confined to the limitations of most traditional abstract, similar approaches have been successfully used to population‐genetics models: a single well‐mixed popula- model the interactions of spatial and temporal heterogene- tion reproducing under soft selection. Also, stochastic ity with life‐histories (Scheiner, 2013), the joint determina- heterogeneity arose solely from genetic factors in this tion of dimorphism by plasticity and genetic differentiation prior work, making it difficult to isolate the effects of that (Leimar, Hammerstein, & Van Dooren, 2006), and the trait from other traits determined by the same genetic maintenance of genetic variation in plastic traits (De Jong & factors. Here I expand upon this study by applying hard Gavrilets, 2000). A slope‐intercept model codifies the idea selection to a population arrayed across a heterogeneous that the effects of mutations are biased by some develop- landscape, and by allowing the environment, rather than mental structure, but that this structure can itself evolve to the genotype, to control the expression of developmental change those biases. The work here combines this simple noise. The model explored here allows plasticity to arise framework with both spatial structure and developmental in response to large‐scale differences between distinct instability to articulate new hypotheses about the ecological environments, in the context of stochastic inputs to and developmental factors favoring plasticity. development that also derive from the environment. Developmental instability has been studied within While this dual role of the environment on development evolutionary biology under names like canalization, robust- connects with classical ideas about plasticity (Bradshaw, ness, and specific cases such as fluctuating asymmetry. A 1965), its formulation in this spatial model allows for new recent surge of interest in the topic has been inspired by the insights about the origins of genotypes using plasticity to tremendous growth in capacity to measure and model achieve a generalist phenotype. Specifically, the ability of stochastic heterogeneity at the levels of molecules, cells, and a population to adapt to a novel environment depends on fitnesses in single‐cell organisms (Bruggeman & Teusink, both the aid of developmental noise and the prior 2018; Draghi, 2018; Raser & O’shea, 2005). Stochastic emergence of genotypes using plasticity to achieve novel heterogeneity in phenotypes arising from developmental specialist lifestyles. These results show how the develop- instability has often been viewed as both a direct detriment mental biases intrinsic to a very simple form of pleiotropy to fitness and an impediment to the fixation of adaptive create a soft constraint on the evolution of an innovative mutations (Wang & Zhang, 2011). However, the concept of feature, and illustrate how environmental opportunity random phenotypic diversity as an adaption to unpredict-
Recommended publications
  • How Morphological Development Can Guide Evolution Sam Kriegman1,*, Nick Cheney1, and Josh Bongard1
    How morphological development can guide evolution Sam Kriegman1,*, Nick Cheney1, and Josh Bongard1 1University of Vermont, Department of Computer Science, Burlington, VT, USA *[email protected] ABSTRACT Organisms result from adaptive processes interacting across different time scales. One such interaction is that between development and evolution. Models have shown that development sweeps over several traits in a single agent, sometimes exposing promising static traits. Subsequent evolution can then canalize these rare traits. Thus, development can, under the right conditions, increase evolvability. Here, we report on a previously unknown phenomenon when embodied agents are allowed to develop and evolve: Evolution discovers body plans robust to control changes, these body plans become genetically assimilated, yet controllers for these agents are not assimilated. This allows evolution to continue climbing fitness gradients by tinkering with the developmental programs for controllers within these permissive body plans. This exposes a previously unknown detail about the Baldwin effect: instead of all useful traits becoming genetically assimilated, only traits that render the agent robust to changes in other traits become assimilated. We refer to this as differential canalization. This finding also has implications for the evolutionary design of artificial and embodied agents such as robots: robots robust to internal changes in their controllers may also be robust to external changes in their environment, such as transferal from simulation to reality or deployment in novel environments. Introduction The shape of life changes on many different time scales. From generation to generation, populations gradually increase in complexity and relative competency. At the individual level, organisms grow from a single-celled egg and exhibit extreme postnatal change as they interact with the outside world during their lifetimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Phenotypic Plasticity and Plant Adaptation
    Acta Bot. Neerl. 44(4), December 1995, p. 363-383 * Phenotypic plasticity and plant adaptation S.E. Sultan Department of Biology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459-0170, USA SUMMARY This paper focuses on phenotypic plasticity as a major mode of adaptation in plants. A methodological critique examines difficulties in studying plasticity, including the conceptually critical distinction between functionally adaptive and inevitable aspects of response. It is that argued plasticity studies depend critically upon the genotypic the and factor sample, choice of environmental factors states, and the definitionof phenotypic traits. Examples are drawn from recent studies to showing adaptive response by genotypes physical aspects of the environment, as well as to biotic factors such as neighbour density and the presence of bacterial symbionts. Alterations of offspring traits by parental plants of Polygonum persicaria are discussed as a cross-generational aspect of plastic response to environment. Finally, individual plasticity and local ecotypes are alternative bases of examined as species ecological breadth, and these alternatives methodological problems in distinguishing are discussed. Key-words: adaptation, maternal effects, norm of reaction, phenotypic plasticity, Polygonum, species distribution. INTRODUCTION Natural environments inevitably vary, both spatially and temporally. According to the classic neo-Darwinian model, organisms accommodate that variation by means of natural selection, which through evolutionary time matches specific genotypes and environments. By assuming a simple Mendelian relationship of genotype to phenotype, this powerful model provides a genetic mechanism for adaptive phenotypic changes in In this I wish to focus second mode of populations. paper on a major adaptation, one which is becoming particularly well understood in plants: the capacity of a single genotype to produce different, functionally appropriate phenotypes in different This environments, or adaptive phenotypic plasticity.
    [Show full text]
  • Phenotypic Plasticity of Feeding Structures in Marine Invertebrate Larvae
    CHAPTER 8 Phenotypic Plasticity of Feeding Structures in Marine Invertebrate Larvae Justin S. McAlister and Benjamin G. Miner Researchers have worked over the last thirty years Scheiner (2004). Here we summarize some of the to examine and understand phenotypic plasticity main concepts in order to facilitate discussion of in larvae of marine invertebrates. These studies plasticity in marine invertebrate larvae later in the range from documenting the association between chapter. Phenotypic plasticity is defined as the abil- algal food availability and larval morphology in ity of a genotype to produce different phenotypes different species to examining the ecological and (developmental, physiological, morphological, be- evolutionary implications of the plastic response. havioral, or life history traits) in response to differ- However, investigators have used disparate sys- ent biotic or abiotic environmental factors. Plasticity tems (genera and species of echinoid echinoderms can be adaptive, maladaptive, or effectively neutral. mostly, but also other taxa), employed various When an organism possesses plasticity that confers rearing and measuring techniques and levels of a fitness advantage, then plasticity is considered genetic replication, and relied on different statisti- adaptive. Researchers have focused on examples in cal methodologies for data analysis. They have also which there is evidence that plasticity is adaptive, obtained results ranging from non-plastic to plastic, likely because of the evolutionary and ecological and reached different conclusions about the func- consequences of phenotypes that improve an organ- tional, ecological, and evolutionary roles of pheno- ism’s fitness. However, phenotypic plasticity can be typic plasticity in marine larvae. Our goals with this non-adaptive and still have important ecological chapter are twofold: to review the literature in order consequences (Miner et al., 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Lamarckian Mechanisms As Developmental Bias and Their Darwinian Base – Descriptive Versus Explanatory Biology (Full Version) Andrzej Gecow [email protected]
    Lamarckian mechanisms as developmental bias… (full v.) A.Gecow [email protected] Sep. 29, 2020 1 Lamarckian mechanisms as developmental bias and their Darwinian base – descriptive versus explanatory biology (full version) Andrzej Gecow [email protected] Abstract The article points out the main obstacles in the discussion of Lamarckian mechanisms, resulting from overly persisted beliefs, habits and understatement. The aim of the article is not to show new biological observation, but to indicate the need to change methodology. ‘Lamarckian mechanisms’ are those that create ‘non-random’ changes (in the aspect of adaptation), and even ‘resulting from instruction’, and these changes become evolutionary. It is part of ‘developmental biases’. To avoid widespread prejudices a permanent stress is needed that such ‘Lamarckian mechanisms’ are an effect of Darwinian mechanisms but this stress is not enough visible. The term ‘Lamarckism’ has two meanings unreasonably connected. The correct meaning is, that adaptive evolutionary changes can be induced by environment and next they are inherited, but typically it is understood as irrational believing that evolutionary changes are adaptive without necessity of help of Darwinian mechanisms. In this case the terms ‘Lamarckian mechanisms’ and ‘Lamarckism’ are not coherent which leads to misunderstanding. Such irrational Lamarckism has small base in Lamarck’s view, it arisen from too shallow interpretation of Lamarck. In the theme ‘inheritance of acquired characters’ a few steps to evolutionary change is indicated, which typically are omitted in the description. Old such descriptions need rebuilding in a new coherent system of notions but to create such system a theory is necessary. The Lamarckian dimension of evolution protrudes beyond the basics of Modern Synthesis however necessity to change the name of the synthesis to Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is discretionary decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Thibaut Brunet and Nicole King
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/161695; this version posted July 12, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. The origin of animal multicellularity and cell differentiation Thibaut Brunet and Nicole King Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA Lead Contact: [email protected] 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/161695; this version posted July 12, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Abstract 2 How animals evolved from their single-celled ancestors over 600 million years ago is 3 poorly understood. Comparisons of genomes from animals and their closest relatives – 4 choanoflagellates, filastereans and ichthyosporeans – have recently revealed the genomic 5 landscape of animal origins. However, the cell and developmental biology of the first animals have 6 been less well examined. Using principles from evolutionary cell biology, we reason that the last 7 common ancestor of animals and choanoflagellates (the ‘Urchoanozoan’) used a collar complex - 8 a flagellum surrounded by a microvillar collar – to capture bacterial prey. The origin of animal 9 multicellularity likely occurred through the modification of pre-existing mechanisms for 10 extracellular matrix synthesis and regulation of cytokinesis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Phenotypic Plasticity Antonine Nicoglou
    The evolution of phenotypic plasticity Antonine Nicoglou To cite this version: Antonine Nicoglou. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity: Genealogy of a debate in genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Elsevier, 2015, 50, pp.67-76. 10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.01.003. halshs-01498558 HAL Id: halshs-01498558 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01498558 Submitted on 30 Mar 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Preprint – Final Draft To be published in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.01.003 The evolution of phenotypic plasticity: Genealogy of a debate in genetics Antonine Nicoglou IHPST Paris, CNRS, University of Paris 1, ENS, 13 rue du Four, 75006 Paris, France [email protected] +33 6 81 44 64 25 1 Preprint – Final Draft To be published in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.01.003 Abstract: The paper describes the context and the origin of a particular debate that concerns the evolution of phenotypic plasticity.
    [Show full text]
  • Constraints on the Evolution of Phenotypic Plasticity: Limits and Costs of Phenotype and Plasticity
    OPEN Heredity (2015) 115, 293–301 & 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 0018-067X/15 www.nature.com/hdy REVIEW Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity: limits and costs of phenotype and plasticity CJ Murren1, JR Auld2, H Callahan3, CK Ghalambor4, CA Handelsman4, MA Heskel5, JG Kingsolver6, HJ Maclean6, J Masel7, H Maughan8, DW Pfennig6, RA Relyea9, S Seiter10, E Snell-Rood11, UK Steiner12 and CD Schlichting13 Phenotypic plasticity is ubiquitous and generally regarded as a key mechanism for enabling organisms to survive in the face of environmental change. Because no organism is infinitely or ideally plastic, theory suggests that there must be limits (for example, the lack of ability to produce an optimal trait) to the evolution of phenotypic plasticity, or that plasticity may have inherent significant costs. Yet numerous experimental studies have not detected widespread costs. Explicitly differentiating plasticity costs from phenotype costs, we re-evaluate fundamental questions of the limits to the evolution of plasticity and of generalists vs specialists. We advocate for the view that relaxed selection and variable selection intensities are likely more important constraints to the evolution of plasticity than the costs of plasticity. Some forms of plasticity, such as learning, may be inherently costly. In addition, we examine opportunities to offset costs of phenotypes through ontogeny, amelioration of phenotypic costs across environments, and the condition-dependent hypothesis. We propose avenues of further inquiry in the limits of plasticity using new and classic methods of ecological parameterization, phylogenetics and omics in the context of answering questions on the constraints of plasticity. Given plasticity’s key role in coping with environmental change, approaches spanning the spectrum from applied to basic will greatly enrich our understanding of the evolution of plasticity and resolve our understanding of limits.
    [Show full text]
  • Are We There Yet? Tracking the Development of New Model Systems
    Review Are we there yet? Tracking the development of new model systems Arhat Abzhanov1, Cassandra G. Extavour1, Andrew Groover2,3, Scott A. Hodges4, Hopi E. Hoekstra1, Elena M. Kramer1 and Antonia Monteiro5 1 Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 2 Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA 3 USDA Forest Service, Institute of Forest Genetics, Davis, CA 95616, USA 4 Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA 5 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA It is increasingly clear that additional ‘model’ systems However, because there are often few surviving inter- are needed to elucidate the genetic and developmental mediate species and genetic crosses are not feasible, basis of organismal diversity. Whereas model system the precise molecular mechanisms responsible for these development previously required enormous investment, phenotypic transitions are usually more difficult to recent advances including the decreasing cost of DNA pinpoint. sequencing and the power of reverse genetics to study Regardless of our individual preferences in sampling the gene function are greatly facilitating the process. In this tree of life, a clearer picture of organismal evolution will review, we consider two aspects of the development of emerge only as we study more taxa. In addition, many of us new genetic model systems: first, the types of questions want to understand evolutionary processes at the molecular being advanced using these new models; and second, and/or developmental level, processes that are at work in the essential characteristics and molecular tools for new natural populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretical Plurality, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, and Archaeology PERSPECTIVE Anna Marie Prentissa,1
    PERSPECTIVE Theoretical plurality, the extended evolutionary synthesis, and archaeology PERSPECTIVE Anna Marie Prentissa,1 Edited by Dolores R. Piperno, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, and approved November 18, 2020 (received for review April 29, 2020) The study of cultural evolution now includes multiple theoretical frameworks. Despite common influence from Darwinian evolutionary theory, there is considerable diversity. Thus, we recognize those most influenced by the tenets of the Modern Synthesis (evolutionary archaeology, cultural transmission theory, and human behavioral ecology) and those most aligned more closely with concepts emerging in the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (cultural macroevolution and evolutionary cognitive archaeology). There has been substantial debate between adherents of these schools of thought as to their appropriateness and priority for addressing the fundamentals of cultural evolution. I argue that theoretical diversity is necessary to address research questions arising from a complex archaeological record. Concepts associated with the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis may offer unique insights into the cultural evolutionary process. archaeology | cultural evolution | Modern Synthesis | Extended Evolutionary Synthesis The study of cultural evolution has itself evolved and recognized as cultural transmission theory (CTT) (2). diversified over the past 150 y. In this paper, I examine Ecologists meanwhile rethought their modus oper- the diversity in Darwinian-inspired cultural evolution- andi during the 1950s and 1960s, combining micro- ary models as applied in archaeology in order to make economics with concepts from the MS to create recommendations for how we make critical advances evolutionary ecology (EE) and its human-focused var- in the twenty-first century. I use the term cultural evo- iant, human behavioral ecology (HBE) (3).
    [Show full text]
  • Phenotypic Plasticity for Plant Development, Function and Life History Sonia E
    Plant December pasteup.qxd 17/11/00 10:24 Page 537 trends in plant science Reviews Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history Sonia E. Sultan A single genotype can produce different phenotypes in different environments. This funda- mental property of organisms is known as phenotypic plasticity. Recently, intensive study has shown that plants are plastic for a remarkable array of ecologically important traits, ranging from diverse aspects of morphology and physiology to anatomy, developmental and reproductive timing, breeding system, and offspring developmental patterns. Comparative, quantitative genetics and molecular approaches are leading to new insights into the adaptive nature of plasticity, its underlying mechanisms and its role in the ecological distribution and evolutionary diversification of plants. ndividual organisms can alter their development, physiology environments that are ecologically relevant to the study organism, and life history depending on environmental conditions. These rather than in arbitrary sets of contrasting conditions. Ienvironmental responses are both trait and resource specific, This emphasis on ecologically, and therefore evolutionarily, and represent evolved characteristics that vary among genotypes, meaningful traits and environments has opened several important populations and species. The past 15 years have seen an explosion new avenues of inquiry. Recent research has revealed diverse, of interest in this capacity of a given genotype to express different phenotypes in different environments, a phenomenon known as 10 phenotypic plasticity. Although biologists have long been aware of plasticity (indeed, 9 this is the reason that experiments are performed under controlled 8 Phenotype 2 environmental conditions), for much of the past century pheno- 7 typic response to environment was regarded as ‘environmental noise’ that obscured the ‘true’ genetic characteristics of the organ- 6 Phenotype 3 ism.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Regulation of Phenotypic Plasticity and Canalisation in Yeast 2 Growth
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/066175; this version posted July 27, 2016. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Genetic Regulation of Phenotypic Plasticity and Canalisation in Yeast 2 Growth 3 Anupama Yadav1,*, Kaustubh Dhole1, Himanshu Sinha1,2,3,* 4 1Department of Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 5 400005, India 6 2Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian 7 Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India 8 3Initiative for Biological Systems Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, 9 Chennai 600036, India 10 11 *Authors for Correspondence: Anupama Yadav, Department of Biological Sciences, Tata 12 Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005, India; Tel: +91-9869336415, Email: 13 [email protected]; and Himanshu Sinha, Department of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti 14 Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India; 15 Tel: +91-44-22574120, Email: [email protected] 16 17 18 Short title: Genetic Regulation of Phenotypic Plasticity 19 20 Keywords: phenotypic plasticity, canalisation, QTL mapping, reaction norm, environmental 21 variance 22 23 ABSTRACT 24 The ability of a genotype to show diverse phenotypes in different environments is called 25 phenotypic plasticity. Phenotypic plasticity helps populations to evade extinctions in novel 26 environments, facilitates adaptation and fuels evolution. However, most studies focus on 27 understanding the genetic basis of phenotypic regulation in specific environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationship Among Phenotypic Plasticity, Phenotypic Fluctuations
    Relationship among phenotypic plasticity, phenotypic fl uctuations, robustness, and evolvability 529 Relationship among phenotypic plasticity, phenotypic fl uctuations, robustness, and evolvability; Waddington’s legacy revisited under the spirit of Einstein KUNIHIKO KANEKO Department of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan and ERATO Complex Systems Biology Project, JST, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan (Email, [email protected]) Questions on possible relationship between phenotypic plasticity and evolvability, and that between robustness and evolution have been addressed over decades in the fi eld of evolution-development. Based on laboratory evolution experiments and numerical simulations of gene expression dynamics model with an evolving transcription network, we propose quantitative relationships on plasticity, phenotypic fl uctuations, and evolvability. By introducing an evolutionary stability assumption on the distribution of phenotype and genotype, the proportionality among phenotypic plasticity against environmental change, variances of phenotype fl uctuations of genetic and developmental origins, and evolution speed is obtained. The correlation between developmental robustness to noise and evolutionary robustness to mutation is analysed by simulations of the gene network model. These results provide quantitative formulation on canalization and genetic assimilation, in terms of fl uctuations of gene expression levels. [Kaneko K 2009 Relationship among phenotypic plasticity, phenotypic fl uctuations, robustness, and evolvability; Waddington’s legacy revisited under the spirit of Einstein; J. Biosci. 34 529–542] 1. Introduction 2005; Ciliberti et al. 2007; Kaneko 2007). In any biological system, these changes have two distinct origins: genetic 1.1 Questions on evolution and epigenetic.
    [Show full text]