Development Genes and Evolution

, Volume 214, Issue 8, pp 418–421

Homology and homocracy revisited: gene expression patterns and hypotheses of homology

Opinion Article

Abstract

Homocracy, a term referring to shared regulatory gene expression patterns between organs in different animals, was introduced recently in order to prevent inappropriate inference of organ homology based on gene expression data. Non-homologous structures expressing homologous genes, and homologous structures expressing non-homologous genes illustrate that gene expression data is not sufficient on its own to identify morphological homology. However, gene expression data might be useful in testing hypotheses of organ homology, because parsimony can be applied on changes in the relation between expression of orthologous regulatory genes and the formation of homologous organs. A method of testing organ homology hypotheses with respect to change in regulatory gene expression required within a particular phylogenetic context is presented.

Keywords

Homology Homocracy Phylogeny Expression data Synapomorphy 

References

  1. Abouheif E (1997) Developmental genetics and homology: a hierarchical approach. Trends Ecol Evol 12:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abouheif E, Akam M, Dickinson WJ, Holland PW, Meyer A, Patel NH, Raff RA, Roth VL, Wray GA (1997) Homology and developmental genes. Trends Genet 13:432–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth C, Crossley S, Buchanan-Wollaston V, Thangavelu M, Parker J (1995) Male and female flowers of the dioecious plant sorrel show different patterns of MADS box gene expression. Plant Cell 7:1583–1598Google Scholar
  4. Balavoine G, Adoutte A (2003) The segmented Urbilateria: a testable scenario. Integr Comp Biol 43:137–147Google Scholar
  5. Bang R, DeSalle R, Wheeler W (2000) Transformationalism, taxism, and developmental biology in systematics. Syst Biol 49:19–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolker JA, Raff RA (1996) Developmental genetics and traditional homology. Bioessays 18:489–494PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brigandt I (2003) Homology in comparative, molecular, and evolutionary developmental biology: the radiation of a concept. J Exp Zool Part B Mol Dev Evol 299:9–17Google Scholar
  8. Budd GE (1999) Does evolution in body patterning genes drive morphological change—or vice versa? Bioessays 21:326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coen ES, Meyerowitz EM (1991) The war of the whorls: genetic interactions controlling flower development. Nature 353:31–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooke J, Nowak MA, Boerlijst M, Maynard-Smith J (1997) Evolutionary origins and maintenance of redundant gene expression during metazoan development. Trends Genet 13:360–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. dePinna MCC (1991) Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7:367–394Google Scholar
  12. Dickinson WJ (1995) Molecules and morphology: where’s the homology? Trends Genet 11:119–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Doyle JJ (1997) Trees within trees: genes and species, molecules and morphology. Syst Biol 46:537–553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  15. Hall BK (1994) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  16. Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill.Google Scholar
  17. Janies D, DeSalle R (1999) Development, evolution, and corroboration. Anat Rec 257:6–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanno A, Saeki H, Kameya T, Saedler H, Theissen G (2003) Heterotopic expression of class B floral homeotic genes supports a modified ABC model for tulip (Tulipa gesneriana). Plant Mol Biol 52:831–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mitgutsch C (2003) On Carl Gegenbaur’s theory on head metamerism and the selection of taxa for comparisons. Theory Biosci 122:204–229Google Scholar
  20. Nielsen C (2001) Animal evolution: interrelationships of the living phyla. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen C, Martinez P (2003) Patterns of gene expression: homology or homocracy? Dev Genes Evol 213:149–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Owen R (1843) Lectures on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Patterson C (1982) Morphological characters and homology. In: Joyses KA, Friday AE (eds) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp 21–74Google Scholar
  24. Rieppel O (1994) Homology, topology, and typology: the history of modern debates. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 63–100Google Scholar
  25. Sattler R (1988) Homeosis in plants. Am J Bot 75:1606–1617Google Scholar
  26. Sattler R (1994) Homology, homeosis, and process morphology in plants. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 423–475Google Scholar
  27. Simpson P (2002) Evolution of development in closely related species of flies and worms. Nat Rev Genet 3:907–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Stollewerk A, Schoppmeier M, Damen WG (2003) Involvement of Notch and Delta genes in spider segmentation. Nature 423:863–865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tautz D (1992) Redundancies, development and the flow of information. Bioessays 14:263–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Tautz D (1998) Evolutionary biology. Debatable homologies. Nature 395:17, 19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vergara-Silva F (2003) Plants and the conceptual articulation of evolutionary developmental biology. Biol Philos 18:249–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wake DB (2003) Homology and homoplasy. In: Hall BK, Olson WM (eds) Keywords and concepts in evolutionary developmental biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp 191–201Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie mit Phyletischem MuseumJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations