Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study Hints at How Genetic Mutations Led to Macroevolutionary Change
Scientific American ^ | Kate Wong

Posted on 02/07/2002 8:49:05 AM PST by realpatriot71

EVOLUTION
Study Hints at How Genetic Mutations Led to Macroevolutionary Change

brine shrimp
Image: Matthew Ronshaugen/UCSD

The fossil record contains numerous examples of dramatic evolutionary change in animals through time. Exactly how genetic alterations brought about these macroevolutionary changes, however, has proved difficult to ascertain. Now new research into the developmental biology of brine shrimp and fruit flies could throw light on the matter. According to a report published online today by the journal Nature, mutations in genes that guide embryonic development allowed insects to develop a radically different body plan from that of their crustacean-like ancestors some 400 million years ago.

The University of California, San Diego, team that conducted the research focused on so-called Hox genes, master switches that turn other genes on and off during the embryonic development of all animals, including humans. One of these Hox genes, known as Hbx, suppresses 100 percent of limb development in the thorax region of fruit flies, but only 15 percent in the brine shrimp Artemia (right). Modifications of Hbx, the investigators determined, would have allowed the many-limbed, crustacean-like ancient relatives of Artemia to lose their rear limbs, giving rise to the six-legged insects. "Before the evolution of insects, the Ubx protein didn't turn off genes required for leg formation," team member William McGinnis explains. "During the early evolution of insects, this gene and the protein it encoded changed so that they now turned off those genes required to make legs, essentially removing those legs from what would be the abdomen in insects."

In addition to shedding light on how major shifts in body design evolved, the new finding could help scientists better understand certain human diseases and deformities. "If you compare [Hbx] to many other related genes, you can see that they share certain regions in their sequences, which suggests that their function might be regulated like this gene," remarks lead study author Matthew Ronshaugen. "This may establish how, not only this gene, but relatives of this gene in many, many different organisms actually work." A number of these genes are involved in cancer and developmental abnormalities, he says, and "they may explain how some of these conditions came to be." ÑKate Wong

RELATED LINK:

"How Limbs Develop," by Robert D. Riddle and Clifford J. Tabin (Scientific American, February 1999), is available for purchase at the Scientific American Archive.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last

61 posted on 02/07/2002 3:39:25 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Looks like some de-evolution there . . .

:-)

62 posted on 02/07/2002 4:06:53 PM PST by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
Oh yeah? You're just a science-hating goddist!

Not "goddite"? "Goddian?" "Goddoid"?

63 posted on 02/07/2002 5:34:28 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
LOL!
64 posted on 02/07/2002 5:42:45 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: *Evolution
Bump List
65 posted on 02/07/2002 6:10:38 PM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
I wonder what Michael Behe would say about this?
66 posted on 02/07/2002 6:33:49 PM PST by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
LOL! Anything older than my birthdate is approximate.
67 posted on 02/07/2002 8:26:39 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
We should never forget that "species" is a man-made concept,...

Excellent point. "Species" is a convenient label. Nature produces individuals, man produces classifications. Individuals do not belong to species. This is why classification is somewhat slippery at the boundaries. Some people to belive that the "species" which an individual belongs to determines that individual's properties. (Especially in sociology.) It's really vice versa.

68 posted on 02/07/2002 8:41:20 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71

The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [15th Revision]

69 posted on 02/08/2002 10:04:09 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson