Back

Variation in a pleiotropic regulatory module drives evolution of head shape and eye size in Drosophila

Buchberger, E.; Bilen, A.; Ayaz, S.; Salamanca, D.; Matas de las Heras, C.; Niksic, A.; Almudi, I.; Torres-Oliva, M.; Casares, F.; Posnien, N.

2020-01-25 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2020.01.24.918011 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Revealing the mechanisms underlying the breath-taking morphological diversity observed in nature is a major challenge in Biology. It has been established that recurrent mutations in hotspot genes cause the repeated evolution of rather simple morphological traits, such as body pigmentation or the gain and loss of structures. To date, however, it remains elusive whether hotspot genes contribute to natural variation in complex morphological traits, such as the size and shape of organs. Since natural variation in head morphology is pervasive in Drosophila, we studied the molecular and developmental basis of differences in compound eye size and head shape in two closely related Drosophila species. We show that differences in both traits are established late during head development and we applied comparative transcriptomics and chromatin accessibility data to identify the GATA transcription factor Pannier (Pnr) as central factor regulating these differences. Although the genetic manipulation of Pnr affected multiple aspects of dorsal head development, the effect of natural variation is restricted to a subset of the phenotypic space. We present data suggesting that this developmental constraint is caused by the co-evolution of expression of pnr and its co-factor u-shaped (ush). We propose that natural variation in highly connected developmental regulators with pleiotropic functions is a major driver for morphological evolution and we discuss implications on gene regulatory network evolution. In comparison to previous findings, our data strongly suggests that evolutionary hotspots do not contribute to the repeated evolution of eye size and head shape in Drosophila.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.