IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1002208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolution of Networks for Body Plan Patterning; Interplay of Modularity, Robustness and Evolvability

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsten H ten Tusscher
  • Paulien Hogeweg

Abstract

A major goal of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is to understand how multicellular body plans of increasing complexity have evolved, and how the corresponding developmental programs are genetically encoded. It has been repeatedly argued that key to the evolution of increased body plan complexity is the modularity of the underlying developmental gene regulatory networks (GRNs). This modularity is considered essential for network robustness and evolvability. In our opinion, these ideas, appealing as they may sound, have not been sufficiently tested. Here we use computer simulations to study the evolution of GRNs' underlying body plan patterning. We select for body plan segmentation and differentiation, as these are considered to be major innovations in metazoan evolution. To allow modular networks to evolve, we independently select for segmentation and differentiation. We study both the occurrence and relation of robustness, evolvability and modularity of evolved networks. Interestingly, we observed two distinct evolutionary strategies to evolve a segmented, differentiated body plan. In the first strategy, first segments and then differentiation domains evolve (SF strategy). In the second scenario segments and domains evolve simultaneously (SS strategy). We demonstrate that under indirect selection for robustness the SF strategy becomes dominant. In addition, as a byproduct of this larger robustness, the SF strategy is also more evolvable. Finally, using a combined functional and architectural approach, we determine network modularity. We find that while SS networks generate segments and domains in an integrated manner, SF networks use largely independent modules to produce segments and domains. Surprisingly, we find that widely used, purely architectural methods for determining network modularity completely fail to establish this higher modularity of SF networks. Finally, we observe that, as a free side effect of evolving segmentation and differentiation in combination, we obtained in-silico developmental mechanisms resembling mechanisms used in vertebrate development. Author Summary: An important question in evolutionary developmental biology is how the complex organisms we see around us have evolved, and how this complexity is encoded in their DNA. An often heard statement is that the gene regulatory networks underlying developmental processes are modular; that is, different functions are carried out by largely independent network parts. It is argued that this network modularity allows both for robust functioning and evolutionary tinkering, and that selection thus produces modular networks. Here we use a simulation model for the evolution of animal body plan patterning to investigate these ideas. To allow for the evolution of modular networks we independently select for both body plan segmentation and differentiation. We find two distinct evolutionary trajectories, one in which segments evolve before domains, and one in which segments and domains evolve simultaneously. In addition, the two evolved network types also differ in terms of developmental dynamics. We show that indirect selection for robustness favors the segments first type networks. Furthermore, as a free side effect, these more robust networks are also more evolvable. Finally, we take into account both functional and architectural aspects to determine the modularity of the network types. We show that segments simultaneous networks generate segments and domains in a integrated manner, whereas segments first networks use largely independent modules to generate segments and domains. Finally, although mimicking natural developmental mechanisms was not part of our model design, the segments first developmental mechanisms resembles vertebrate axial patterning mechanisms. This resemblance arises for free, simply from considering segmentation and differentiation in combination.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsten H ten Tusscher & Paulien Hogeweg, 2011. "Evolution of Networks for Body Plan Patterning; Interplay of Modularity, Robustness and Evolvability," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-16, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002208
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002208
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002208&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002208?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Levine & Robert Tjian, 2003. "Transcription regulation and animal diversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 424(6945), pages 147-151, July.
    2. Angelika Stollewerk & Michael Schoppmeier & Wim G. M. Damen, 2003. "Involvement of Notch and Delta genes in spider segmentation," Nature, Nature, vol. 423(6942), pages 863-865, June.
    3. D. Chourrout & F. Delsuc & P. Chourrout & R. B. Edvardsen & F. Rentzsch & E. Renfer & M. F. Jensen & B. Zhu & P. de Jong & R. E. Steele & U. Technau, 2006. "Minimal ProtoHox cluster inferred from bilaterian and cnidarian Hox complements," Nature, Nature, vol. 442(7103), pages 684-687, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buki Kwon & Mervin M. Fansler & Neil D. Patel & Jihye Lee & Weirui Ma & Christine Mayr, 2022. "Enhancers regulate 3′ end processing activity to control expression of alternative 3′UTR isoforms," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Erik Andrews & Yue Wang & Tian Xia & Wenqing Cheng & Chao Cheng, 2017. "Contextual Refinement of Regulatory Targets Reveals Effects on Breast Cancer Prognosis of the Regulome," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Armita Nourmohammad & Michael Lässig, 2011. "Formation of Regulatory Modules by Local Sequence Duplication," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-12, October.
    4. Mitsutaka Kadota & Howard H Yang & Nan Hu & Chaoyu Wang & Ying Hu & Philip R Taylor & Kenneth H Buetow & Maxwell P Lee, 2007. "Allele-Specific Chromatin Immunoprecipitation Studies Show Genetic Influence on Chromatin State in Human Genome," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(5), pages 1-11, May.
    5. Bob Zimmermann & Juan D. Montenegro & Sofia M. C. Robb & Whitney J. Fropf & Lukas Weilguny & Shuonan He & Shiyuan Chen & Jessica Lovegrove-Walsh & Eric M. Hill & Cheng-Yi Chen & Katerina Ragkousi & Da, 2023. "Topological structures and syntenic conservation in sea anemone genomes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Timothy H-C Hsiau & Claudiu Diaconu & Connie A Myers & Jongwoo Lee & Constance L Cepko & Joseph C Corbo, 2007. "The Cis-regulatory Logic of the Mammalian Photoreceptor Transcriptional Network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(7), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Alex N Nguyen Ba & Bob Strome & Jun Jie Hua & Jonathan Desmond & Isabelle Gagnon-Arsenault & Eric L Weiss & Christian R Landry & Alan M Moses, 2014. "Detecting Functional Divergence after Gene Duplication through Evolutionary Changes in Posttranslational Regulatory Sequences," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    8. James M Billingsley & Premeela A Rajakumar & Michelle A Connole & Nadine C Salisch & Sama Adnan & Yury V Kuzmichev & Henoch S Hong & R Keith Reeves & Hyung-joo Kang & Wenjun Li & Qingsheng Li & Ashley, 2015. "Characterization of CD8+ T Cell Differentiation following SIVΔnef Vaccination by Transcription Factor Expression Profiling," PLOS Pathogens, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, March.
    9. Aria Ronsmans & Maxime Wery & Ugo Szachnowski & Camille Gautier & Marc Descrimes & Evelyne Dubois & Antonin Morillon & Isabelle Georis, 2019. "Transcription-dependent spreading of the Dal80 yeast GATA factor across the body of highly expressed genes," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-31, February.
    10. Xiaoyu Tu & Sibo Ren & Wei Shen & Jianjian Li & Yuxiang Li & Chuanshun Li & Yangmeihui Li & Zhanxiang Zong & Weibo Xie & Donald Grierson & Zhangjun Fei & Jim Giovannoni & Pinghua Li & Silin Zhong, 2022. "Limited conservation in cross-species comparison of GLK transcription factor binding suggested wide-spread cistrome divergence," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.