SEARCH · PubMed Health
Results for “Biological Evolution”
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Neophenogenesis: a developmental theory of phenotypic evolution.
An important task for evolutionary biology is to explain how phenotypes change over evolutionary time. Neo-Darwinian theory explains phenotypic change as the outcome of genetic change brought about by natural selection. In the neo-Darwinian account, genetic change is primary; phenotypic change is a secondary outcome that is often given no explicit consideration at all. In this article, we introduce the concept of neophenogenesis: a persistent, transgenerational change in phenotypes over evolutionary time. A theory of neophenogenesis must encompass all sources of such phenotypic change, not just genetic ones. Both genetic and extra-genetic contributions to neophenogenesis have their effect through the mechanisms of development, and developmental considerations, particularly a rejection of the commonly held distinction between inherited and acquired traits, occupy a central place in neophenogenetic theory. New phenotypes arise because of a change in the patterns of organism-environment interaction that produce development in members of a population. So long as these new patterns of developmental interaction persist, the new phenotype(s) will also persist. Although the developmental mechanisms that produce the novel phenotype may change, as in the process known as "genetic assimilation", such changes are not necessary in order for neophenogenesis to occur, because neophenogenetic theory is a theory of phenotypic, not genetic, change.
Correlated evolutionary pressure at interacting transcription factors and DNA response elements can guide the rational engineering of DNA binding specificity.
Understanding the molecular mechanisms of the specific interaction between transcription factor proteins and DNA is key to comprehend the regulation of gene expression and to develop technologies to engineer transcription factors. Thus far, although there have been several attempts to elucidate protein-DNA interaction through amino acid-base recognition codes, sequence based profiles, or physical models of interaction, the greatest successes in engineering DNA binding specificity remain experimental. Here we present the first systematic evidence of correlated evolutionary pressure at interacting amino acid residues and DNA base-pairs in transcription factors, and show that it can be used to rationally engineer DNA binding specificity. The correlation is between the relative evolutionary importance of protein residues and DNA bases, measured, respectively, in terms of the Evolutionary Trace (ET) rank and information entropy. The evolutionarily most important residues interact with the most conserved base-pairs within the response element while residues of least importance interact with the most variable base-pairs. The correlation averages 0.74 over 12 unrelated families of transcriptional regulators, including nuclear hormone receptors, basic helix-loop-helix, ETS- and homeo-domain family. To test the predictive power of this correlation, we targeted a mutational swap of top-ranked ET residues in a transcription factor, LRH-1. This redirects LRH-1 binding as predicted and showed that, in this case, evolutionary importance and binding specificity are coupled sufficiently strongly for the Evolutionary Trace to guide the computational design of DNA binding specificity. This establishes the existence of evolutionary importance correlation at protein-DNA interfaces, and demonstrates that it is a useful principle for the rational engineering of binding specificity.
The biology of deception: the evolution of cognitive coping as a denial-like process.
We speculate that the development of cognitive processes provided such endowed animals with an additional coping strategy in dealing with stress. This ability depends on a unifying consciousness appearing to control or regulate the many individual processes that potentially summate to make up the mind. Without this unifying component, the significance and uniqueness of this coping strategy would be lost. The cognitive mind would also have to develop, of course by chance, a strong bias to believe in a highly organized world, since this is what would have survival value within one lifetime. This sense of unity as a coping strategy is really a deception or illusion, in that it imposes perceived order. Thus, the biology of deception has been an important development leading to man as a cognitive creative being. Our premise here extends this notion and suggests that denial-like processes are at the core of the cognitive coping mechanisms we have evolved as humans.
[The ontogenesis of the reproductive function in women. The biological pattern and its deformation by social evolution].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
How plants make tubes.
The plant body requires the transport of various materials over large distances. Two cell types that bear a striking resemblance morphologically are the cells specialized for water transport and those responsible for the transport of oxygen: xylem and lysigenous aerenchyma, respectively. Each of these cell types undergoes programmed cell death and cellular autolysis, resulting in the production of a functional space within the plant body. The major morphological difference observed is the presence of the lignified secondary wall in water-conducting tissues. The prevalence of tubular structures in other plant tissues suggests that the ability to form spaces through cellular autolysis is a fundamental paradigm in plant development and evolution.
Markov-modulated Markov chains and the covarion process of molecular evolution.
The covarion (or site specific rate variation, SSRV) process of biological sequence evolution is a process by which the evolutionary rate of a nucleotide/amino acid/codon position can change in time. In this paper, we introduce time-continuous, space-discrete, Markov-modulated Markov chains as a model for representing SSRV processes, generalizing existing theory to any model of rate change. We propose a fast algorithm for diagonalizing the generator matrix of relevant Markov-modulated Markov processes. This algorithm makes phylogeny likelihood calculation tractable even for a large number of rate classes and a large number of states, so that SSRV models become applicable to amino acid or codon sequence datasets. Using this algorithm, we investigate the accuracy of the discrete approximation to the Gamma distribution of evolutionary rates, widely used in molecular phylogeny. We show that a relatively large number of classes is required to achieve accurate approximation of the exact likelihood when the number of analyzed sequences exceeds 20, both under the SSRV and among site rate variation (ASRV) models.
Evolutionary perspectives on the fetal origins hypothesis.
The fetal origins hypothesis, or Barker hypothesis, is both stimulating and challenging for evolutionary human biologists. While evidence of a correlation between conditions around the time of birth and later health outcomes has been presented before, the more recent evidence of a connection between fetal growth and chronic disease risk later in life has attracted considerable attention among epidemiologists and human biologists. Several themes that are fundamental to human biology emerge from an engagement with the fetal origins hypothesis. Among them are the tension between concepts of pathology, constraint, and adaptation; the importance of a life history perspective that embraces the notion of trade-offs; the question of environmental predictability; and the mechanisms of energy mobilization and allocation. Bringing the insights of evolutionary biology to bear on the fetal origins hypothesis illustrates the value of the field now known as evolutionary medicine.
Developmental origins of adult disease: Barker's or Dorner's hypothesis?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Creating bridges or rifts? Developmental systems theory and evolutionary developmental biology.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Species as family resemblance concepts: the (dis-)solution of the species problem?
The so-called "species problem" has plagued evolutionary biology since before Darwin's publication of the aptly titled Origin of Species. Many biologists think the problem is just a matter of semantics; others complain that it will not be solved until we have more empirical data. Yet, we don't seem to be able to escape discussing it and teaching seminars about it. In this paper, I briefly examine the main themes of the biological and philosophical literatures on the species problem, focusing on identifying common threads as well as relevant differences. I then argue two fundamental points. First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require-but cannot be settled by-empirical evidence. Second, the (dis-)solution lies in explicitly adopting Wittgenstein's idea of "family resemblance" or cluster concepts, and to consider species as an example of such concepts. This solution has several attractive features, including bringing together apparently diverging themes of discussion among biologists and philosophers. The current proposal is conceptually independent (though not incompatible) with the pluralist approach to the species problem advocated by Mishler, Donoghue, Kitcher and Dupré, which implies that distinct aspects of the species question need to be emphasized depending on the goals of the researcher. From the biological literature, the concept of species that most closely matches the philosophical discussion presented here is Templeton's cohesion idea.
Bridging the gap between developmental systems theory and evolutionary developmental biology.
Many scientists and philosophers of science are troubled by the relative isolation of developmental from evolutionary biology. Reconciling the science of development with the science of heredity preoccupied a minority of biologists for much of the twentieth century, but these efforts were not corporately successful. Mainly in the past fifteen years, however, these previously dispersed integrating programmes have been themselves synthesized and so reinvigorated. Two of these more recent synthesizing endeavours are evolutionary developmental biology (EDB, or "evo-devo") and developmental systems theory (DST). While the former is a bourgeoning and scientifically well-respected biological discipline, the same cannot be said of DST, which is virtually unknown among biologists. In this review, we provide overviews of DST and EDB, summarize their key tenets, examine how they relate to one another and to the study of epigenetics, and survey the impact that DST and EDB have had (and in future should have) on biological theory and practice.
Different species problems and their resolution.
At least three different issues are commonly referred to by the term "the species problem": one concerns the necessary properties of species, a second the processes responsible for the existence of species, and a third methods for inferring species limits. Solutions have recently been proposed to the first two problems, which are conceptual in nature (the third is methodological). The first equates species with metapopulation lineages and proposes that existence as a separately evolving metapopulation lineage be considered the only necessary property of species. The second views the species category as a cluster concept and proposes that no single process or set of processes be considered necessary for the existence of species. Although these two solutions have been portrayed as being in conflict, they are, in fact, highly compatible. Moreover, the proposals in question clarify the problem concerning methods for inferring the limits of species, which has for a long time been confused with the problem concerning the necessary properties of species. Together these proposals provide the opportunity for biology to move beyond debates about the definition of the species category and focus on estimating the boundaries and numbers of species as well as studying the diverse processes involved in their origin and persistence.
Tinkering: a metaphor uniting evolutionary and developmental biology.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Plant developmental biology: green genes for the 21st century.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Canalization: a molecular genetic perspective.
The phenomenon of canalization--the genetic capacity to buffer developmental pathways against mutational or environmental perturbations--was first characterized in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Despite enormous subsequent progress in understanding the nature of the genetic material and the molecular basis of gene expression, there have been few attempts to interpret the classical work on canalization in molecular genetic terms. Some recent findings, however, bear on one form of canalization, 'genetic canalization', the stabilization of development against mutational effects. These data indicate that co-expressed paralogous genes can function as mutual 'back-up' elements in developmental processes. Paralogues, however, are far from the only basis of canalization: other genetic sources can be readily envisaged and some of these are described here. The evolutionary questions about genetic canalization and the mechanistic questions about developmental instability that still need to be addressed are also briefly discussed.
Developing a framework for development: a discussion.
A multitude of scientific disciplines study the development of behavior. Their use of different methodological and conceptual approaches makes integration of findings difficult. In a symposium at the 38th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology in Washington DC, the question was discussed if a general theory of development could unify the field. The three participants explain their views and discuss the possibility of a theoretical framework for development.