Click here to close
Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Xenbase and may cause the site to display incorrectly.
We suggest using a current version of Chrome,
FireFox, or Safari.
Nat Commun
2011 Jan 01;2:248. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1248.
Show Gene links
Show Anatomy links
Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals vertebrate phylotypic period during organogenesis.
Irie N
,
Kuratani S
.
???displayArticle.abstract???
One of the central issues in evolutionary developmental biology is how we can formulate the relationships between evolutionary and developmental processes. Two major models have been proposed: the 'funnel-like' model, in which the earliest embryo shows the most conserved morphological pattern, followed by diversifying later stages, and the 'hourglass' model, in which constraints are imposed to conserve organogenesis stages, which is called the phylotypic period. Here we perform a quantitative comparative transcriptome analysis of several model vertebrate embryos and show that the pharyngula stage is most conserved, whereas earlier and later stages are rather divergent. These results allow us to predict approximate developmental timetables between different species, and indicate that pharyngula embryos have the most conserved gene expression profiles, which may be the source of the basic body plan of vertebrates.
Figure 1. The two major hypotheses about how developmental processes are conserved against evolutionary changes.In both models, embryogenesis proceeds from the bottom to the top, and the width represents the phylogenetic diversity of developmental processes, which are deduced from morphological similarities. (a) The funnel-like model predicts conservation at the earliest embryonic stage. During embryogenesis, diversity increases additively and progressively. This model is based upon the extreme case of developmental burden or generative entrenchment, in which the viability of any developmental feature depends on an earlier one (arrows). (b) The hourglass model predicts conservation of the organogenesis stage. Circles beside the model indicate inductive general features of signals observed during each stage. During this stage, a highly intricate signalling network is established consisting of inductive signals, including the Hox genes11, which leads to conservation of the animal body plan12. Figure 1b was adapted with permission from 11 and 12. (c) Hypothetical data supporting the funnel-like (left) and hourglass (right) models. For both examples, the transcriptome data of M. musculus embryos (early, middle and late stages) were compared with X. laevis embryos (early, middle and late stages) in an all-to-all manner. The data, which are consistent with the funnel-like model, show that the transcriptome similarity is highest in the early versus early comparison (shaded point on the blue line; left). Data that are consistent with the hourglass model show that the transcriptome similarity is highest in the middle versus middle comparison (right).
Figure 2. Transcriptome similarities of different embryos.Spearman correlation coefficients (Ï) of the transcriptome data from pairs of embryos from different species at different developmental stages. Higher Ï values indicate higher transcriptome similarity. The sampled stages are shown on the left. Different coloured lines indicate different developmental stages. For example, in the chart for the DrâXl comparison, the left end of the blue line indicates the Spearman correlation coefficients of a one-cell D. rerio embryo and a stage two X. laevis embryo. As the comparison proceeds to later developmental stages of X. laevis, or to the right of the blue line, the Spearman correlation coefficients decrease. Note that the Ï scores calculated for the early versus early stages (left part of the blue lines in each graph) are not the highest. The number in the upper right corner of each chart indicates the number of orthologous genes, which were used to calculate the transcriptome similarities. Error bars indicate s.d.
Figure 3. Higher transcriptome similarities among representative pharyngula stages.(a) Spearman correlation coefficient (Ï) of the expression profiles of 1,573 core orthologues from representative stages of cleavage, blastula/shield, pharyngula (defined here as the stage of onset of pharyngeal arch formation) and late-stage embryos. Numbers or text in the grey spheres indicate the stage of each species. The colours of the lines, which connect each stage, reflect the Ï value, according to the colour gradient shown at the top. (b) Box (quantile) plot of the Ï scores of representative stages, which were evaluated with hierarchical Bayes-based, KruskalâWallis analysis of variance tests (P=1.9Ã10â12). The asterisk indicates that the Ï scores of the pharyngula stages were significantly higher than that of the cleavage, blastula/shield or late embryo stages (Wilcoxon test corrected α=0.0017).
Altschul,
Basic local alignment search tool.
1990, Pubmed
Altschul,
Basic local alignment search tool.
1990,
Pubmed
Bininda-Emonds,
Inverting the hourglass: quantitative evidence against the phylotypic stage in vertebrate development.
2003,
Pubmed
Cline,
Integration of biological networks and gene expression data using Cytoscape.
2007,
Pubmed
Comte,
Molecular signaling in zebrafish development and the vertebrate phylotypic period.
2010,
Pubmed
de Jong,
Polymorphism in developmental timing: intraspecific heterochrony in a Lake Victoria cichlid.
2009,
Pubmed
De Robertis,
A common plan for dorsoventral patterning in Bilateria.
1996,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Duboule,
Temporal colinearity and the phylotypic progression: a basis for the stability of a vertebrate Bauplan and the evolution of morphologies through heterochrony.
1994,
Pubmed
Erwin,
The last common bilaterian ancestor.
2002,
Pubmed
Galis,
Testing the vulnerability of the phylotypic stage: on modularity and evolutionary conservation.
2001,
Pubmed
Gentleman,
Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics.
2004,
Pubmed
Hall,
Phylotypic stage or phantom: is there a highly conserved embryonic stage in vertebrates?
1997,
Pubmed
Hamburger,
A series of normal stages in the development of the chick embryo. 1951.
1992,
Pubmed
Hazkani-Covo,
In search of the vertebrate phylotypic stage: a molecular examination of the developmental hourglass model and von Baer's third law.
2005,
Pubmed
Irie,
The vertebrate phylotypic stage and an early bilaterian-related stage in mouse embryogenesis defined by genomic information.
2007,
Pubmed
Kaneko,
Isologous diversification: a theory of cell differentiation.
1997,
Pubmed
Kimmel,
Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish.
1995,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Li,
OrthoMCL: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes.
2003,
Pubmed
Li,
Maternal control of early mouse development.
2010,
Pubmed
Ozil,
Ca2+ oscillatory pattern in fertilized mouse eggs affects gene expression and development to term.
2006,
Pubmed
Rasmussen,
A new model of developmental constraints as applied to the Drosophila system.
1987,
Pubmed
Richardson,
Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development.
2002,
Pubmed
Richardson,
Heterochrony and the phylotypic period.
1995,
Pubmed
Richardson,
Phylotypic stage theory.
1998,
Pubmed
Richardson,
There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development.
1997,
Pubmed
Roux,
Developmental constraints on vertebrate genome evolution.
2008,
Pubmed
Sander,
Evo-devo aspects of classical and molecular data in a historical perspective.
2004,
Pubmed
Schier,
The maternal-zygotic transition: death and birth of RNAs.
2007,
Pubmed
Slack,
The zootype and the phylotypic stage.
1993,
Pubmed
Solnica-Krezel,
Conserved patterns of cell movements during vertebrate gastrulation.
2005,
Pubmed