Different species of fruit flies exhibit remarkably different patterns of wing decoration. At the far right is the familiar Drosophila melanogaster, the workhorse model organism of genetics, which differs markedly from other fruit fly species.
Posted on 02/09/2005 7:35:49 AM PST by PatrickHenry
By analyzing the genetic origin of a modest spot on a fruit fly wing, Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers have discovered a molecular mechanism that explains, in part, how new patterns can evolve. The secret appears to be specific segments of DNA that orchestrate where proteins are used in the construction of an insect's body.
In the February 3, 2005, issue of the journal Nature, HHMI investigator Sean B. Carroll and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, published evidence showing that regions of DNA known as cis-regulatory elements have major evolutionary importance. Cis-regulatory elements are DNA segments that nestle around and even within gene segments that code for specific proteins. Rather than coding for a protein, however, these segments regulate the function of a nearby gene - and can allow for variations in that function depending on the tissue or developmental stage of an organism.
Different species of fruit flies exhibit remarkably different patterns of wing decoration. At the far right is the familiar Drosophila melanogaster, the workhorse model organism of genetics, which differs markedly from other fruit fly species.
“Some biologists, including myself, have for many years suspected that cis-regulatory elements would be key to the evolution of form,” said Carroll. “The essence of our argument has been that proteins can have multiple jobs in the body — at different times and in different tissues. Mutations in a gene's protein-coding region could exact an enormous penalty by affecting the function of that protein throughout the organism. But mutations in a regulatory region could affect only the production of the resulting protein in one setting — allowing fine-scale variation with no collateral damage.
“The amount of direct evidence for the role of cis-regulatory elements in evolution has been very small and very narrow in scope,” he said. “But in this study, we believe we present evidence that is of a smoking-gun variety.”
The researchers chose to study the evolution of the wing spot on the fruit fly because it is a simple trait with a well-understood evolutionary history. While ancient fruit fly species lack the spots, Carroll said, some species that evolved later have developed them under the pressure of sexual selection. The wing spots offer a survival advantage to males, who depend on the decorations to “impress” females to choose them in the mating process.
In fruit flies, wing pigmentation depends on a gene known as yellow, which is found in fly species both with and without the spot. Since differences in the cis-regulatory elements controlling the yellow gene might account for variations in the spot, the researchers began by transferring potential cis-regulatory elements from the spotted species biarmipes into the spot-free species melanogaster. They attached the regulatory region to a gene for a fluorescent protein, and found that that gene was expressed in the spot-free species just as the yellow gene was in the spotted species, demonstrating the importance of the cis-regulatory region.
While the researchers later found evidence that changes in other genes were also involved in evolution of the wing spot, it was clear that evolution of the cis-regulatory regions of yellow was a critical step in the process. They therefore next sought to explore the origin and function of the cis-regulatory region itself. By comparing biarmipes, melanogaster, and other species, the scientists established that mutation of a preexisting regulatory region lead to the evolution of the spot pattern.
Importantly, they discovered that in the species with the wing spot, multiple mutations of the cis-regulatory region had created binding sites for existing regulatory proteins in the cell. By allowing these regulatory proteins to interact with the yellow gene, these new binding sites resulted in formation of a spot pattern. For example, the newly evolved binding sites included ones for a regulatory protein called Engrailed, which was already known to be used by all fruit flies to govern formation of wing structure. Binding of Engrailed to the regulatory region of the yellow gene is a necessary step in development of the wing spot.
“Co-opting” is central to the success of such an evolutionary mechanism, said Carroll. “A key concept here is that this novelty arose from new combinations of old parts,” he said. “Through constant mutation, new binding sites for these existing regulatory proteins randomly evolve. And when the pressure of natural selection makes them create advantageous structures — such as a useful wing spot — they are preserved.”
The evolutionary process of co-opting existing regulatory systems explains why the same structures — such as spots on fly wings — can evolve independently in distantly related species, said Carroll. “The architecture of the wing is old and stable,” he said. “The vein pattern, the sensory organs, the attachment to the body — all are ancient. So, for tens of millions of years, the same proteins have been available to modify patterns on the wings because they are there to do other jobs. When we see the same patterns evolving in distantly related species, we can theorize that it's just the same regulatory alteration of these existing systems happening again and again when selection favors it.
“We like to use a Christmas tree analogy,” said Carroll. “These systems already have all the structural details in place, like the structure of a Christmas tree. And all evolution has to do is to alter these regulatory elements mutationally to bring out a pattern — like hanging ornaments on the tree.”
These evo/creo threads are so predictable: they start out with some reasonable and well-mannered discussion, then the creationists are ridiculed and consequently leave, and then the anti-creationists laugh to each other how stooopid and corrupt the creationists are....
Such fallacious communication by those who supposedly hold science and logic in high regard....
If the creationists want to avoid ridicule then they should avoid making ridiculous posts.
"The Designer" virtually never designs anything really new. That makes perfect evolutionary sense, but far less ID sense.
Before any given mythological event didn't happen, it's hard to say what conditions were. But penguins live on and near Antarctica. And the North Pole, if it ever warmed up, would be ocean.
The ancestors of penguins, then, may have lived anywhere.
My guess would be Antarctica, which has drifted to the south pole of Earth via plate tectonics from regions far to the north. This transition happened at a speed far below "glacial."
"Intelligent Designing" must be like theoretical physics is said to be -- a young man's game. After a few billion years, the thrill has worn off, and the Designer just keeps recycling the old stuff.
The little guy on the far left is kind of pretty.
Ah, yes ... the roots of sexual attraction go way back, my dear.
So the boy fruit fly says to the girl fruit fly, "Hey, wanna come upstairs and look at my spots?"
I think that the point jenny was trying to make (and she can correct me if I'm wrong) was that if the flood were literally true, then the surviving pair of koalas, for example, would have had to travel from Mt Ararat to Australia. Why would modern koalas then be found only in Australia, and not at any points in between Mt Ararat and Australia? Plate techtonics doesn't help here. Plate techtonics maintains that Australia and Asia were once part of the same land mass, not that Mt Ararat and Australia were near each other at any time.
My pet drosophila melanogaster recently morphed into an anteater. Gee, Darwin was right!
"My pet drosophila melanogaster recently morphed into an anteater. Gee, Darwin was right!"
Darwin was right in most things he proposed. You on the other hand don't understand what evolution is and your attempt at humor above demonstrates that.
Instead of ridiculing evolution, why don't you tell us support for your position? I have never seen one scientific argument for ID, creation science or whatever bogus idea you think is in the Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.