The combined effect of two mutations that alter serially homologous color pattern elements on the fore and hindwings of a butterfly

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The ability for serially homologous structures to acquire a separate identity has been primarily investigated for structures dependent on Hox gene input but is still incompletely understood in other systems. The fore and hindwings of butterflies are serially homologous structures as are the serially homologous eyespots that can decorate each of these wings. Eyespots can vary in number between fore and hindwings of the same individual and mutations of large effect can control the total number of eyespots that each of the wings displays. Here we investigate the genetics of a new spontaneous color pattern mutation, <it>Missing</it>, that alters eyespot number in the nymphalid butterfly, <it>Bicyclus anynana</it>. We further test the interaction of <it>Missing </it>with a previously described mutation, <it>Spotty</it>, describe the developmental stage affected by <it>Missing</it>, and test whether <it>Missing </it>is a mutant variant of the gene <it>Distal-less </it>via a linkage association study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p><it>Missing </it>removes or greatly reduces the size of two of the hindwing eyespots from the row of seven eyespots, with no detectable effect on the rest of the wing pattern. Offspring carrying a single <it>Missing </it>allele display intermediate sized eyespots at these positions. <it>Spotty </it>has the opposite effect of <it>Missing</it>, i.e., it introduces two extra eyespots in homologous wing positions to those affected by <it>Missing</it>, but on the forewing. When <it>Missing </it>is combined with <it>Spotty </it>the size of the two forewing eyespots decreases but the size of the hindwing spots stays the same, suggesting that these two mutations have a combined effect on the forewing such that <it>Missing </it>reduces eyespot size when in the presence of a <it>Spotty </it>mutant allele, but that <it>Spotty </it>has no effect on the hindwing. <it>Missing </it>prevents the complete differentiation of two of the eyespot foci on the hindwing. We found no evidence for any linkage between the <it>Distal-less </it>and <it>Missing </it>genes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The spontaneous mutation <it>Missing </it>controls the differentiation of the signaling centers of a subset of the serial homologous eyespots present on both the fore and the hindwing in a dose-dependent fashion. The effect of <it>Missing </it>on the forewing, however, is only observed when the mutation <it>Spotty </it>introduces additional eyespots on this wing. <it>Spotty</it>, on the other hand, controls the differentiation of eyespot centers only on the forewing. <it>Spotty</it>, unlike <it>Missing</it>, may be under Ubx gene regulation, since it affects a subset of eyespots on only one of the serially homologous wings.</p

Pre-Bilaterian Origins of the Hox Cluster and the Hox Code: Evidence from the Sea Anemone, Nematostella vectensis

BACKGROUND: Hox genes were critical to many morphological innovations of bilaterian animals. However, early Hox evolution remains obscure. Phylogenetic, developmental, and genomic analyses on the cnidarian sea anemone Nematostella vectensis challenge recent claims that the Hox code is a bilaterian invention and that no “true” Hox genes exist in the phylum Cnidaria. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Phylogenetic analyses of 18 Hox-related genes from Nematostella identify putative Hox1, Hox2, and Hox9+ genes. Statistical comparisons among competing hypotheses bolster these findings, including an explicit consideration of the gene losses implied by alternate topologies. In situ hybridization studies of 20 Hox-related genes reveal that multiple Hox genes are expressed in distinct regions along the primary body axis, supporting the existence of a pre-bilaterian Hox code. Additionally, several Hox genes are expressed in nested domains along the secondary body axis, suggesting a role in “dorsoventral” patterning. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: A cluster of anterior and posterior Hox genes, as well as ParaHox cluster of genes evolved prior to the cnidarian-bilaterian split. There is evidence to suggest that these clusters were formed from a series of tandem gene duplication events and played a role in patterning both the primary and secondary body axes in a bilaterally symmetrical common ancestor. Cnidarians and bilaterians shared a common ancestor some 570 to 700 million years ago, and as such, are derived from a common body plan. Our work reveals several conserved genetic components that are found in both of these diverse lineages. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that a set of developmental rules established in the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians is still at work today

Polyhydramnios in Lrp4 knockout mice with bilateral kidney agenesis: Defects in the pathways of amniotic fluid clearance

Amniotic fluid volume during mid-to-late gestation depends mainly on the urine excretion from the foetal kidneys and partly on the fluid secretion from the foetal lungs during foetal breathing-like movements. Urine is necessary for foetal breathing-like movements, which is critical for foetal lung development. Bilateral renal agenesis and/or obstruction of the urinary tract lead to oligohydramnios, which causes infant death within a short period after birth due to pulmonary hypoplasia. Lrp4, which functions as an agrin receptor, is essential for the formation of neuromuscular junctions. Herein, we report novel phenotypes of Lrp4 knockout (Lrp4(−/−)) mice. Most Lrp4(−/−) foetuses showed unilateral or bilateral kidney agenesis, and Lrp4 knockout resulted in polyhydramnios. The loss of Lrp4 compromised foetal swallowing and breathing-like movements and downregulated the expression of aquaporin-9 in the foetal membrane and aquaporin-1 in the placenta, which possibly affected the amniotic fluid clearance. These results suggest that amniotic fluid removal was compromised in Lrp4(−/−) foetuses, resulting in polyhydramnios despite the impairment of urine production. Our findings indicate that amniotic fluid removal plays an essential role in regulating the amniotic fluid volume