Abstract
Cichlids have undergone extensive evolutionary modifications of their feeding apparatus, making them an ideal model to study the factors that underlie craniofacial diversity. Recent studies have provided critical insights into the molecular mechanisms that have contributed to the origin and maintenance of cichlid trophic diversity. We review this body of work, which shows that the cichlid jaw is regulated by a few genes of major additive effect, and is composed of modules that have evolved under strong divergent selection. Adaptive variation in cichlid jaw shape is evident early in development and is associated with allelic variation in and expression of bmp4. Modulating this growth factor in the experimentally tractable zebrafish model reproduces natural variation in cichlid jaw shape, supporting a role for bmp4 in craniofacial evolution. These data demonstrate the utility of the cichlid jaw as a model for studying the genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary changes in craniofacial morphology.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Cichlid fishes are an important evolutionary model (Kocher, 2004). Their uncanny ability to exploit new environments by radiating into a wide array of shapes and forms has made them an ideal system to study the factors that underlie morphological diversity. The East African Rift Valley alone contains more than 2000 endemic cichlid species, most of which have evolved in the past 1–2 million years. Several lines of evidence suggest that functional divergence in feeding morphology has contributed to the radiation and maintenance of cichlid species diversity. Thus, adaptive variation in jaw shape is critical to the success of this group.
Cichlids also offer several advantages as an experimental system. The natural variation among species offers an extensive, nonlethal ‘mutant screen’ to assay the molecular cues that underlie morphological variation. Thus, whereas chemical mutagenesis in model laboratory organisms (eg zebrafish) has traditionally been used to assay the molecular basis of jaw morphogenesis, natural selection among cichlids has produced an extensive mutant panel to dissect the molecular cues involved in producing natural variation in jaw morphology. Moreover, because of the recent origin of most cichlid radiations, taxa that differ dramatically in shape can be crossed to produce viable and fertile hybrids. This offers a unique opportunity to study the genetic basis of characters that afford species an adaptive advantage. There are also a multitude of genomic resources available to cichlid researchers, including genetic linkage maps, physical maps, BAC libraries, and cDNA resources including microarrays (Kocher et al, 1998; Watanabe et al, 2003; Albertson et al, 2003a; Renn et al, 2004; Katagiri et al, 2005; Lang et al, 2005; Lee et al, 2005). Importantly, the close evolutionary relationship among African cichlids ensures that genomic resources developed in one species may be used for studies in thousands of related taxa.
For reasons of experimental utility and evolutionary richness, cichlids are an emerging model for studies in evolution and development. Below we review advances made in understanding the genetic and developmental mechanisms that underlie adaptive variation in cichlid jaw shape.
A brief history of cichlid evolution
The ancestors of most East African cichlids can be traced to Lake Tanganyika. At 8–10 million years old, Lake Tanganyika is the oldest of the rift valley lakes. Several lines of evidence suggest that Lake Tanganyika acted as an evolutionary reservoir, seeding the surrounding lakes and river systems to initiate new species flocks within the last 1–2 million years (Meyer et al, 1990; Kocher et al, 1993, 1995; Salzburger et al, 2005). The implications of these findings are twofold. First, it points to a very recent origin for several local cichlid radiations – less than 200 000 years for the 500 cichlid species in Lake Victoria. In addition, these data point to a remarkable degree of convergence among cichlid radiations. Strikingly similar ecotypes have evolved repeatedly in several lineages, both within and between lakes (Figure 1). The observation that unrelated cichlids have solved ecological problems in a similar fashion suggests there may be constraints on the direction of cichlid evolution. Whether morphological convergence equals molecular convergence remains an important question to be addressed.
The molecular basis of alternate feeding strategies
On biters and suckers
Cichlids partition their foraging habitat both by what they eat and how they gather prey. A fundamental divergence among cichlids occurs between species that forage on hard and/or attached prey items (eg snails and filamentous algae), and those that feed on mobile prey (eg plankton and other fishes). This functional divergence is accompanied by the evolution of stereotypical jaw morphologies, which reflect the mechanical properties of the feeding apparatus. Species that strip attached algae from the rocky substratum evolve short, stout jaws efficient for biting, whereas pelagic feeders evolve more elongate, gracile jaws for suction feeding. This divergence has occurred repeatedly during East African cichlid evolution. Variation along this functional axis is also associated with the evolution of several other fish taxa, including North American sunfishes as well as several lineages of coral reef fishes (Motta, 1982; Wainwright and Shaw, 1999; Wainwright et al, 2004). Thus, understanding the molecular basis of this functional divergence will have broad implications for understanding the evolution of bony fishes.
Several studies have demonstrated the linkage between functional morphology of the teleost jaw and differences in feeding performance (Liem, 1974, 1980; Otten, 1983; Reinthal, 1990; Bouton et al, 1997, 1998). From a mechanical perspective the cichlid mandible can be described as two opposing lever systems. The first defines the mechanics of jaw opening, and is measured as the ratio between the depth of the retroarticular process (opening in-lever) and the length of the jaw (out-lever). The second describes the mechanics of jaw closing, and is taken as the ratio between the height of the coronoid process (closing in-lever) and the length of the jaw (out-lever). These ratios are formally referred to as mechanical advantage, as they define the fraction of force that is translated from the muscular attachments on the retroarticular and coronoid processes to the tip of the mandible. High mechanical advantage predicts powerful jaw rotation, which is typical of biting species. Low mechanical advantage predicts weak but rapid jaw rotation, typical of sucking species. Dentition is also an excellent predictor of foraging niche. Biting species typically possess an outer row of small, closely spaced teeth with multiple cusps. Suction feeders, on the other hand, are characterized by an outer row of large, intermittently spaced teeth with fewer cusps. Like jaw morphology, cichlid dental patterning has evolved rapidly and replicatively, and is associated with both ancient and contemporary trophic evolution (Ruber et al, 1999; Huysseune et al, 2002; Streelman et al, 2003).
What follows is an overview of progress made toward understanding the molecular basis of alternate feeding strategies. Three questions will be addressed. First, what is the number and effect of genes that underlie adaptive shape differences among cichlid species? Second, how has genetic variation for these traits evolved among cichlids? Finally, how does genetic variation manifest itself during development?
The number and effect of genes that distinguish feeding morphologies
Reverse genetics is a classic approach that has been successfully employed to dissect the genetic basis of complex traits in both laboratory and natural populations. This approach was recently taken for studying the feeding apparatus in East African cichlids. Two Lake Malawi cichlid species that forage in distinct ways and possess disparate jaw morphologies were crossed to produce an F2 mapping population (Figure 2) (Albertson et al, 2003a, 2003b). Labeotropheus fuelleborni (LF) is a specialized biting species with a short, robust jaw that it employs to crops filamentous algae from the rocky substratum. LF possesses an outer row of closely spaced tricuspid teeth on both the upper and lower jaws, which resemble the cutting edge of shearing scissors. Metriaclima zebra (MZ) is a generalist feeder with a more elongate jaw that it uses to brush loose plant matter from algae beds, and pluck plankton from the water column with a sucking mode of feeding. MZ's dentition resembles the teeth of a comb, with taller intermittently spaced bicuspid teeth on both jaws. Oral jaw morphologies of LF and MZ reflect different modes of food collection, and place them on opposite ends of the biting/sucking continuum.
Analysis of line crosses enables one to estimate the minimum number of genetic factors that underlie a particular trait, as well as the relative contribution of additive, dominance, and epistatic effects to the inheritance of that trait. The Castle-Wright estimator compares variances between F1 and F2 generations to estimate the number of genes that contribute to a phenotypic difference, while a joint-scaling test can be used to assess genetic effects (reviewed in Lynch and Walsh (1998)). The application of these techniques in the LF × MZ cross provided the first insights into the genetic architecture of cichlid feeding morphology (Albertson et al, 2003b). Between one and 10 genes were estimated to affect the shape of each bony element in the head. Furthermore, there was little support for nonadditive genetic effects on trophic morphology. These data support a relatively simple additive genetic basis for cichlid trophic shape differences. Of particular interest, the distribution of tooth shape among the F2 was tri-modal, suggesting that cusp number is largely determined by a single genetic factor. This finding has important implications for the evolution of dentition in cichlids.
Evolution and development of cichlid tooth shape
Dentition figures prominently in discussions of adaptive radiation in groups as distinct as hominids and teleosts (McCollum and Sharpe, 2001; Sire and Huysseune, 2003). The observation that differences in tooth shape may be controlled by changes at a small number of loci suggests that this character has the potential to respond rapidly to selection. Integrating knowledge of vertebrate tooth development with patterns observed among natural cichlid populations, Streelman et al (2003) proposed a simple morphogenetic model to explain the development basis of variation in cichlid dentition.
Implicit to Streelman's model is the observation that a common set of activators and inhibitors are iteratively expressed at multiple stages of vertebrate tooth development (reviewed by Thesleff and Sharpe (1997, 1999); Cobourne and Sharpe (2003)). For instance, BMPs and FGFs are initially expressed in the oral epithelium, and specify the position of tooth formation. Later, these same signaling molecules are secreted from the enamel knot, a putative epithelial signaling center that regulates the development of dental cusps (Jernvall and Thesleff, 2000). The iterative effects of a common suite of signaling molecules during both tooth initiation and morphogenesis predicts an association between the number of teeth within the jaw and the number of cusps on a tooth. Natural variation in cichlid dentition provided the perfect opportunity to explore this association.
A strong positive relationship between tooth and cusp number was observed among cichlid species (Streelman et al, 2003; Streelman and Albertson, 2006). Cyanotilapia afra is a planktivore with few, large, distantly spaced unicuspid teeth in the outer tooth row on both the upper and lower jaw. Metriaclima species are generalized feeders that forage in the water column and from the rocky substrate, and have an outer row of significantly more bicuspid teeth. LF feeds exclusively from rocks, and has many, smaller tricuspid teeth. This trend is likely applicable to a much broader sampling of cichlid species. In general, species with larger, unicuspid teeth (suction feeders) have fewer teeth, whereas species with smaller, multicuspid teeth (biters) have many more teeth in their jaws (Ribbink et al, 1983).
This association could be explained by different concentrations of a single inhibitory molecule at two distinct odontogenic stages (Streelman et al, 2003). At the initiation stage, the local concentration of a putative inhibitor within the oral epithelium will establish where a tooth forms, and the relative distance between adjacent tooth buds (ie how many teeth will develop within a single tooth row). High levels will establish a relatively broad inhibitory field, which will result in the formation of large, distantly spaced teeth. A decrease in concentration will produce smaller inhibitor fields, leading to a greater number of teeth. During morphogenesis, the level of the same inhibitor secreted from the enamel knot will affect cusp development. Higher levels will lead to fewer cusps, whereas lower concentrations will lead to more cusps. Given its role during mammalian tooth initiation and morphogenesis, bmp4 has been posited as a candidate for the coordinated evolution of cichlid dentition (Streelman et al, 2003; Streelman and Albertson, 2006). While allelic variation in bmp4 does not segregate with tooth shape in LF × MZ F2 hybrids (Albertson et al, 2003a), it is divergently expressed during tooth development in cichlid species with different dental patterns (Streelman and Albertson, 2006) (Figure 3). Thus, BMP4 signal may be modulated by an as-of-yet unidentified trans acting molecule during cichlid odontogenesis. The recent characterization of two signaling molecules (at least one of which is a known BMP4 antagonist, reviewed by Streelman and Albertson, 2006) that exhibit coordinated effects on tooth and cusp number offers additional support for Streelman's model (Kangas et al, 2004; Kassai et al, 2005).
Morphological integration of the cichlid jaw
The theory of morphological integration postulates that genetic correlations will evolve among traits that function together (Olson and Miller, 1958; Wagner, 1996). The mechanical properties of the cichlid jaw are well understood, providing an opportunity to test this hypothesis in an evolutionary model system. The geometry of the cichlid mandible can be reduced to three vectors of functional relevance: the length of the jaw (out-lever), the height of the coronoid process (closing in-lever), and the depth of the retroarticular process (opening in-lever) (Figure 4). Coordinated changes of in- and out-lever lengths will effect the mechanical properties of jaw rotation. Thus, we predicted that the in- and out-levers of the cichlid jaw would be integrated, whereas the two in-levers would be genetically decoupled.
Patterns of genetic covariation of the cichlid jaw offer strong support for the theory of morphological integration (Albertson et al, 2003a, 2003b, 2005) (Figure 4). For example, the closing in-lever and the out-lever share two of three quantitative trait loci (QTL), and are inherited together in the F2 of the LF × MZ cross. The opening in-lever and the out-lever share only one of five QTL, but still segregate together. Alternatively, the closing and opening in-levers share none of eight QTL, and are not inherited together. These data suggest different levels of integration for different regions of the cichlid mandible, and support the idea that modularity is not an all-or-nothing concept, but rather a matter of degrees (Klingenberg, 2004).
The jaw closing mechanism is integrated to a greater extent than the mechanism for jaw opening (Albertson et al, 2005). We have argued that this disparity reflects differences in the evolutionary, functional, and developmental complexity of these two linkage systems. The jaw closing mechanism, for example, appeared early in actinopterygian evolution and has remained relatively unaltered (reviewed in Liem et al, 2000). Jaw closing in teleosts is also a relatively simple process that involves the coordinated action of the upper and lower jaws (Barel, 1983; Otten, 1983; Liem et al, 2000; Westneat, 2003). Jaw opening, on the other hand, has been extensively modified during the evolution of ray-finned fishes (reviewed in Liem et al, 2000), and is a more complex process that involves the synchronized action of several biomechanical systems defined by the oral jaws, hyoid, operculum, skull and pectoral girdle (Liem, 1978; Westneat, 1994; Wainwright et al, 2004). From a developmental perspective, most of the vertebrate mandible originates from cranial neural crest cells derived from the presumptive midbrain. In contrast, the retroarticular process develops from a heterogeneous population of crest cells derived from up to three hindbrain segments (Köntges and Lumsden, 1996). Thus, greater levels of integration were observed among traits with a more static evolutionary history, simple function, and homogeneous developmental origin. These observations support the hypothesis that the cichlid mandible is a morphologically integrated structure (Olson and Miller, 1958; Wagner, 1996).
How broadly applicable are the patterns of integration observed in this laboratory cross? If LF and MZ mark opposite ends of a putative biting/sucking functional continuum, then a multitude of species occupy a place somewhere along this axis. Clear expectations were established from the LF × MZ cross about which traits should co-vary among natural populations. Members of the Pseudotropheous tropheops species complex are characterized by jaw morphologies that are roughly intermediate between LF and MZ. These species also tend to partition their foraging habitat by time spent feeding on loose or attached algae (Albertson, 2002). Patterns of phenotypic integration of jaw characters across twelve P. tropheops species are strikingly similar to those observed among the LF × MZ F2, suggesting that a common molecular mechanism may underlie variation along this axis (Figure 5).
The evolution of genetic variation
The QTL sign-test has been used to assay the role of directional selection in phenotypic divergence (Orr, 1998). The null hypothesis is that traits diverge in response to ‘neutral’ processes (eg genetic drift). The expectation under the null hypothesis is that individual populations will accumulate alleles of antagonistic (+ and −) effect. The alternate hypothesis is that traits have diverged under directional selection. Under this hypothesis individual populations are expected to accumulate alleles of consistently positive or consistently negative effect. The crux of the QTL sign-test is the ratio between loci that exhibit a consistent directional effect and the total number of QTL. A QTL ratio of 0.500 is observed when half the alleles from species ‘A’ have a positive effect and half have a negative effect, consistent with the null hypothesis. A QTL ratio of 1.000 is observed when all the alleles from species ‘A’ have a positive effect, and all the alleles from species ‘B’ have a negative effect, consistent with the alternate hypothesis.
A survey of allelic effects for QTL that underlie the shape of the cichlid feeding apparatus produce a QTL ratio of 0.949 (n=39 QTL) (Albertson et al, 2003a). When considering just the opening and closing lever mechanisms of the lower jaw, a QTL ratio of 1.000 is obtained (n=10 QTL) (Albertson et al, 2005). These quantitative genetic data offer the first empirical evidence that the cichlid feeding apparatus diverged in response to strong and/or consistent directional selection.
Exploring patterns of natural variation in jaw morphogenesis
An emerging challenge for evolutionary biologists is to understand how genetic variation at functional loci is translated to adaptive variation in adult form. In previous sections, we reviewed progress made toward understanding the genetic basis of differences in cichlid shape jaw. Below we present an overview of recent work that examines the developmental origin of adaptive variation in cichlid jaw shape. An important first question along these lines is, when are shape differences first evident among cichlid species?
By 7 days post-fertilization (dpf), LF and MZ exhibit clear differences in mandibular morphology (Figure 6a). The presumptive mandible is not ossified at this stage, but the cartilaginous precursor, Meckel's cartilage (Mk), exhibits discrete differences in lever ratios. Thus, developmental methodologies may be employed to study the evolution of cichlid jaw shape. To understand the developmental basis of variation in adult skeletal morphology, we examined patterns of natural variation in cichlid jaw morphogenesis.
The progenitor cells of most of the craniofacial skeleton, including the jaw, are the cranial neural crest (CNC), a ‘key innovation’ contributing both to the origin and evolutionary success of vertebrates (Gans and Northcutt, 1983; Helms and Schneider, 2003; Trainor et al, 2003). Evolutionary change in CNC-derived structures may occur as a result of changes in crest cells themselves, or their environment (reviewed in Gerhart and Kirschner, 1997). Development of the CNC has been well studied in several model organisms (reviewed in Hall, 1999). In bony fishes, the CNC migrate in three distinct streams from the putative mid- and hindbrain into a bilateral series of endodermal pouches, called pharyngeal arches. The iterative segmentation of the posterior-most arch into four additional arches is achieved through a complex morphogenic process that involves coordinated signaling from the pharyngeal endoderm and the CNC (Crump et al, 2004). CNC cells within each pharyngeal arch condense and differentiate to form the skeletal anatomy of the head.
Patterns of CNC migration and segmentation were examined in cichlid species with distinct jaw morphologies. While the timing of CNC migration was relatively conserved among species, differences were observed in CNC segmentation. Species with elongate, gracile jaws possessed thin, elongate CNC segments, whereas species with short, robust jaws had short, robust CNC masses (Figure 7). Thus, differences in cichlid CNC development predict adaptive variation in adult morphology. Since pharyngeal arch morphogenesis involves reciprocal signaling from the CNC and the surrounding epithelia, it is unclear whether this difference is due to changes in crest cells or their environment (Schneider and Helms, 2003).
Condensation and differentiation of the CNC are also important stages in jaw morphogenesis (Hall and Miyake, 2000). Work in several vertebrate models has provided a wealth of information regarding the signaling molecules that regulate these events. Bmps, fgfs, and an array of homeobox genes (eg msx, otx, dlx) have been of particular interest, because they regulate various aspects of mesenchymal condensation and differentiation. BMP levels, for example, determine condensation size by the recruitment and expansion of precursor cells (eg CNC) (Goldring et al, 2005). BMPs also regulate the transition from condensation growth to overt differentiation of chondroblasts (Hall and Miyake, 2000; Pizette and Niswander, 2000; Goldring et al, 2005). We cloned and examined the expression of several genes involved in CNC condensation during cichlid embryogenesis (Albertson et al, 2005). In general, local expression domains were consistent with those reported for other animal models. Furthermore, relatively conserved patterns of fgf8, bmp2, dlx2 and msx d/e expression were observed during cichlid jaw morphogenesis. However, striking differences were observed in bmp4 expression (Figure 6b). During the pharyngula period (CNC condensation stages), LF and MZ exhibited marked differences in the level of bmp4 transcripts present within the mandibular arch. While expression of bmp4 mRNA was largely restricted to the distal end of the first arch in MZ embryos, bmp4 was ubiquitously expressed throughout the mandibular mesenchyme in LF embryos. This difference in bmp4 expression is correlated with differences in larval jaw morphology; specifically, differences in the height of the coronoid process.
To explore the potential role of bmp4 in regulating adaptive variation in jaw morphogenesis, its expression and function was examined in the experimentally tractable zebrafish, Danio rerio. Zebrafish are obligate suction feeders characterized by thin elongate mandibles, used to feed on small aquatic insects, crustaceans and plankton (see Hernández et al, 2002 for characterization of zebrafish feeding kinematics). At pharyngula stages of development, little bmp4 was found in the zebrafish mandibular arch (Figure 6c). Likewise, zebrafish larvae develop a thin elongate mandible with a very short coronoid process. Thus, in zebrafish and cichlids bmp4 levels are correlated with the height of the coronoid process. Modulation of bmp4 levels in zebrafish embryos led to a quantitative transformation of mandibular morphology. Specifically, embryos injected with translationally competent bmp4 mRNA exhibited expanded growth of both the retroarticular and coronoid processes. In the lexicon of functional morphology, bmp4 overexpression resulted in an increase in mechanical advantage of the jaw, and reproduced natural variation in cichlid jaw shape.
The role of bmp4 in trophic evolution
In recent years, BMP4 has garnered significant attention as a candidate for craniofacial evolution in vertebrate. This growth factor is known to regulate embryonic cartilage development (Monsoro-Burq et al, 1996; Shum et al, 2003), shows restricted patterns of expression during vertebrate jaw morphogenesis (Semba et al, 2000), and is involved with regional patterning of the mandibular arch (Haworth et al, 2004). BMP4 also regulates mesenchymal condensation size, and treatment with exogenous BMP results in an increase in size and ectopic formation of skeletal elements (Langille, 1994; Hall and Miyake, 1995; Barlow and Francis-West, 1997; Goldring et al, 2005). In cichlids, BMP4 exhibits accelerated rates of amino-acid substitute compared with other growth factors involved in craniofacial development (eg BMP2, DLX, PAX, OTX) (Terai et al, 2002). BMP4 amino-acid evolution was restricted to the prodomain, which supports the hypothesis that regulation of BMP4 may underlie at least some aspect of cichlid diversity (Terai et al, 2002). In Galapagos finches there is a strong correlation between beak morphology and bmp4 expression (Abzhanov et al, 2004). Thick-beaked ground finches exhibit broad bmp4 expression in the beak prominence, whereas thin-beaked cactus finch species show little bmp4 expression in the developing beak. Moreover, modulating BMP4 levels within the frontonasal process mesenchyme of chick embryos altered beak morphology in a way that approximated natural variation among Galapagos finch species (Abzhanov et al, 2004).
The beak of the fish?
On several levels, the beak of the finch is the terrestrial analogue to the cichlid jaw. Both have evolved to exploit specific trophic niches, exhibit tremendous morphological diversity, and are characterized by rapid and replicative evolution. Remarkably, it now appears that variation in these two traits shares a molecular basis. In both systems, expanded bmp4 expression is associated with a biting/crushing morphology. These are among the first studies to link a genetic change with differences in feeding performance.
The notion that bmp4 might underlie adaptive variation in disparate vertebrate classes (birds and fishes), implicates this molecule as a major factor contributing to vertebrate diversity, and raises several important questions. For one, are the effects of bmp4 limited to specific morphological transformations (eg gracile to robust jaws), or does bmp4 participate in a wider array of craniofacial diversity? BMP4 levels have recently been correlated with differences in proliferation zones in the embryonic beaks of ducks and chickens, implicating BMP4-mediated cell proliferation as a determinant of jaw width (Wu et al, 2004). Given the broad and iterative role of BMPs during jaw morphogenesis, bmp4 has the potential to mediate variation along several axes of diversity.
What other genes might underlie trophic diversity? Several vertebrate craniofacial mutants exhibit phenotypes that resemble variation in cichlid jaw shape. Mice deficient in otx2, for example, possess a shortened mandible (Hide et al, 2002). This gene is expressed in the neural crest-derived mandibular mesenchyme (Kimura et al, 1997), and acts to pattern the rostral portion of the embryonic head (Matsuo et al, 1995). Furthermore, duplication and functional diversification of the ancestral otx gene has been implicated in the evolutionary success of vertebrates (Matsuo et al, 1995; Suda et al, 1999). In mice lacking pax9, jaw length is relatively unaffected, however, the coronoid process is missing (Peters et al, 1998). This is a very specific defect, probably related to the role of pax-9 in promoting mesenchymal condensation (Peters et al, 1999) and the observation that the coronoid process develops from a distinct CNC condensation (Atchley and Hall, 1991). In both mice and zebrafish, loss of bapx1 activity leads to a loss of the retroarticular process (Miller et al, 2003; Wilson and Tucker, 2004). Local bapx1 expression is restricted by FGFs and BMPs (Wilson and Tucker, 2004), and positively regulated by edn1 within the developing mandible (Miller et al, 2003). Furthermore, experimental manipulation of bapx1 expression leads to transformations in the shape of the developing mandible (Wilson and Tucker, 2004). These defects resemble variation in cichlid feeding morphology, and could provide the basis for future investigation into the molecular basis of trophic diversity.
Fish ‘n chips
A series of recent experiments have identified genes that are divergently expressed during cichlid jaw morphogenesis using microarray analyses (Kijimoto et al, 2005; Kobayashi et al, 2006). DNA chips were generated from total RNA isolated from the Lake Victorian cichlid, Haplochromis chilotes. Target cDNA was generated from larval jaw explants of Victorian species with different jaw morphologies: Haplochromis sp. ‘red tail sheller’ is a crushing species that feeds on mollusks and is characterized by a short stout jaw; H. parvidens is a streamlined piscivorous species characterized by an elongate feeding apparatus; H. sp. ‘rockkribensis’ is a generalist feeder that forages on loose algae from the rocky substratum; and H. chilotes is an insectivorous species characterized by a narrow head and enlarged fleshy lips. In one experiment, microarray analysis revealed three clones that were differentially expressed in the jaws of Haplochromis sp. ‘red tail sheller’ and H. parvidens (Kijimoto et al, 2005). Among them was cimp1, a novel metalloproteinase from the astacin family of proteins. The biological function of astacins in vertebrates is poorly understood, but what little is known suggests they participate in a variety of processes including morphogenesis and pattern formation (Mohrlen et al, 2003; Goldman and Shalev, 2003). Divergent expression of cimp1 among cichlids was confirmed via in situ hybridization and quantitative PCR analyses (Kijimoto et al, 2005). In both cases, species with a shorter feeding apparatus showed higher levels of cimp1 expression in the developing jaws and head, whereas H. parvidens showed lower levels. In a similar experiment, a gene encoding microfibril-associated glycoprotien 4 (magp4) was found to be divergently expressed in the developing jaws of H. chilotes and Haplochromis sp. ‘rockkribensis’. Interestingly, magp4 haploinsufficiency has been implicated in the inherited human disease, Smith-Magenis syndrome (SMS) (Zhao et al, 1995). Patients with SMS have a microdeletion of chromosome 17p11.2, and exhibit distinctive facial features including excellerated mandibular growth and wide mouths with full fleshy lips (Allanson et al, 1999). SMS is also associated with severe behavioral phenotypes including extreme irritability and aggression (Sarimski, 2004). Quantitative PCR confirmed divergent expression of magp4 during cichlid jaw morphogenesis, with Haplochromis sp. ‘rockkribensis’ exhibiting consistently higher levels of expression. Collectively, these experiments suggest that cimp1 and magp4 are associated with the development of species-specific jaw morphologies, and demonstrate that DNA chips may be used to identify genes that are differentially regulated during cichlid jaw development.
Microarrays are an important addition to the growing number of genomic resources used to study the evolution of cichlid trophic morphology. The use of microarrays will compliment the genetic methodologies reviewed above. For example, genetic analyses will point to the causative mutations that result in divergent jaw shapes. These loci will be targets for natural selection, and therefore their evolutionary history may be studied in the broader context of cichlid evolution. Alternatively, microarray experiments will facilitate an understanding of how genetic variation at functional loci will alter downstream regulatory networks. In this way, DNA chips will provide the opportunity to study the evolution of developmental pathways among closely related species.
Conclusions
Questions related to the development and evolution of complex morphologies will benefit from integrating studies in natural populations and laboratory models. Forward genetic approaches (eg chemical mutagenesis) in laboratory models (eg zebrafish) have provided significant insights into the molecular pathways that regulate morphogenesis of the embryonic jaw. Unfortunately, because most craniofacial mutants exhibit severe defects and die early in development, significantly less is known about the regulation of the jaw morphogenesis beyond embryonic stages (reviewed by Albertson and Yelick, 2004). We view the extensive variation among cichlid species as a mutant panel generated by natural selection. These natural variants can be used to assay a broad range of traits that develop and are remodeled throughout the life of the animal. With this resource, we have the opportunity to complement work in laboratory models by identifying the genetic factors and molecular pathways that regulate morphogenesis beyond the embryo. Continued work in cichlids, and other evolutionary models (Abzhanov et al, 2004; Kimmel et al, 2005), will provide critical insights into the mechanisms that regulate variation in jaw shape.
References
Abzhanov A, Protas M, Grant BR, Grant PR, Tabin CJ (2004). Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin's finches. Science 305: 1462–1465.
Albertson RC (2002). Genetic basis of adaptive morphological radiation in cichlid fishes. PhD Dissertation, University of New Hampshire.
Albertson RC, Yelick PC (2004). Morphogenesis of the jaw: development beyond the embryo. Methods Cell Biol 76: 437–454.
Albertson RC, Streelman JT, Kocher TD (2003a). Directional selection has shaped the oral jaws of Lake Malawi cichlid fishes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 5252–5257.
Albertson RC, Streelman JT, Kocher TD (2003b). Genetic basis of adaptive shape differences in the cichlid head. J Heredity 94: 291–301.
Albertson RC, Streelman JT, Kocher TD, Yelick PC (2005). Integration and evolution of the cichlid mandible: the molecular basis of alternate feeding strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 16287–16292.
Allanson JE, Greenberg F, Smith AC (1999). The face of Smith-Magenis syndrome: a subjective and objective study. J Med Genet 36: 394–397.
Atchley WR, Hall BK (1991). A model for development and evolution of complex morphological structures. Biol Rev 66: 101–157.
Barel CDN (1983). Toward a constructional morphology of cichlid fishes (Teleostei, Perciformes). Neth J Zool 33: 357–424.
Barlow AJ, Francis-West PH (1997). Ectopic application of recombinant BMP-2 and BMP-4 can change patterning of developing chick facial primordia. Development 124: 391–398.
Bouton N, Seehausen O, van Alpen JJM (1997). Resource partitioning among rock-dwelling haplochromines (Pisces: Cichlidae) from Lake Victoria. Ecol Fresh Fish 6: 225–240.
Bouton N, van Os N, Witte F (1998). Feeding performance of Lake Victoria rock cichlids: testing predictions from morphology. J Fish Biol (Suppl A) 53: 118–127.
Cobourne MT, Sharpe PT (2003). Tooth and jaw: molecular mechanisms of patterning in the first branchial arch. Arch Oral Biol 48: 1–14.
Crump JG, Maves L, Lawson N, Weinstein B, Kimmel C (2004). An essential role for Fgfs in endoderm pouch formation influences later craniofacial skeletal patterning. Development 131: 5703–5716.
Gans C, Northcutt G (1983). Neural crest and the origin of vertebrates. Science 220: 268–274.
Gerhart J, Kirschner M (1997). Cells, Embryos, and Evolution. Blackwell Science: Malden, MA.
Goldman S, Shalev E (2003). The role of the matrix metalloproteinases in human endometrial and ovarian cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 111: 109–121.
Goldring MB, Tsuchimochi K, Ijiri K (2005). The control of chondrogenesis. J Cell Biochem 97: 33–44.
Hall BK (1999). The Neural Crest in Development and Evolution. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.: New York, NY.
Hall BK, Miyake T (1995). Divide, accumulate, differentiate: cell condensation in skeletal development revisited. Int J Dev Biol 39: 881–893.
Hall BK, Miyake T (2000). All for one and one for all: condensations and the initiation of skeletal development. Bioessays 22: 138–147.
Haworth KE, Healy C, Morgan P, Sharpe PT (2004). Regionalisation of early head ectoderm is regulated by endoderm and prepatterns the orofacial epithelium. Development 131: 4797–4806.
Helms JA, Schneider RA (2003). Cranial skeletal biology. Nature 423: 326–331.
Hernández LP, Barresi MJF, Devoto SH (2002). Functional morphology and developmental biology of zebrafish: reciprocal illumination from an unlikely couple. J Int Comp Biol 42: 222–231.
Hide T, Hatakeyama J, Kimura-Yoshida C, Tian E, Takeda N, Ushio Y et al (2002). Genetic modifiers of otocephalic phenotypes in Otx2 heterozygous mutant mice. Development 129: 4347–4357.
Huysseune A, Van der Heyden C, Verreijdt L, Wautier K, Van Damme N (2002). Fish dentitions as paradigms for odontogenic questions. Connect Tissue Res 43: 98–102.
Jernvall J, Thesleff I (2000). Reiterative signaling and patterning during mammalian tooth morphogenesis. Mech Dev 92: 19–29.
Kangas AT, Evans AR, Thesleff I, Jernvall J (2004). Nonindependence of mammalian dental characters. Nature 432: 211–214.
Kassai Y, Munne P, Hotta Y, Penttila E, Kavanagh K, Ohbayashi N et al (2005). Regulation of mammalian tooth cusp patterning by ectodin. Science 309: 2067–2070.
Katagiri T, Kidd C, Tomasino E, Davis JT, Wishon C, Stern JE et al (2005). A BAC-based physical map of the Nile tilapia genome. BMC Genom 6: 89.
Kimmel CB, Ullmann B, Walker C, Wilson C, Currey M, Phillips PC et al (2005). Evolution and development of facial bone morphology in threespine sticklebacks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 5791–5796.
Kimura C, Takeda N, Suzuki M, Oshimura M, Aizawa S, Matsuo I (1997). Cis-acting elements conserved between mouse and pufferfish Otx2 genes govern the expression in mesencephalic neural crest cells. Development 124: 3929–3941.
Kijimoto T, Watanabe M, Fujimura K, Nakazawa M, Murakami Y, Kuratani S et al (2005). cimp 1, a novel astacin family metalloproteinase gene from East African cichlids, is differentially expressed between species during growth. Mol Biol Evol 22: 1649–1660.
Klingenberg CP (2004). Integration, modules, and development: molecules to morphology to evolution. In: Pigliucci M, Preston K (eds) Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Oxford University Press: New York. pp 213–230.
Kobayashi N, Watanabe M, Kijimoto T, Fujimura K, Nakazawa M, Ikeo K et al (2006). magp4 gene may contribute to the diversification of cichlid morphs and their speciation. Gene Mar 3 [E-pub ahead of print].
Kocher TD (2004). Adaptive evolution and explosive speciation: the cichlid fish model. Nat Rev Genet 5: 288–298.
Kocher TD, Conroy JA, McKaye KR, Stauffer JR (1993). Similar morphologies of cichlid fish in Lakes Tanganyika and Malawi are due to convergence. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2: 158–165.
Kocher TD, Conroy JA, McKaye KR, Stauffer JR, Lockwood SF (1995). Evolution of NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 in east African cichlid fish. Mol Phylogenet Evol 4: 420–432.
Kocher TD, Lee WJ, Sobolewska H, Penman D, McAndrew B (1998). A genetic linkage map of a cichlid fish, the tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Genetics 148: 1225–1232.
Köntges G, Lumsden A (1996). Rhombencephalic neural crest segmentation is preserved throughout craniofacial ontogeny. Development 122: 3229–3242.
Lang M, Miyake T, Braasch I, Tinnemore D, Siegel N, Salzburger W et al (2005). A BAC library of the East African haplochromine cichlid fish Astatotilapia burtoni. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 306: 35–44.
Langille RM (1994). Chondrogenic differentiation in cultures of embryonic rat mesenchyme. Microsc Res Tech 28: 455–469.
Lee BY, Lee WJ, Streelman JT, Carleton KL, Howe AE, Hulata G et al (2005). A second generation genetic linkage map of tilapia (Oreochromis spp). Genetics 170: 237–244.
Liem KF (1974). Evolutionary strategies and morphological innovations: cichlid pharyngeal jaws. Syst Zool 22: 425–441.
Liem KF (1978). Modulatory multiplicity in the functional repertoire of the feeding mechanism in cichlid fishes. J Morph 158: 323–360.
Liem KF (1980). Adaptive significance of intra- and interspecific differences in the feeding repertoires of cichlid fishes. Am Zool 20: 25–31.
Liem KF, Bemis W, Walker WF, Grande L, Walker W (2000). Functional Anatomy of the Vertebrates: An Evolutionary Perspective, 3rd edn. Brooks Cole: Philadelphia.
Lynch M, Walsh B (1998). Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA.
Matsuo I, Kuratani S, Kimura C, Takeda N, Aizawa S (1995). Mouse Otx2 functions in the formation and patterning of rostral head. Genes Dev 9: 2646–2658.
McCollum MA, Sharpe PT (2001). Developmental genetics and early hominid craniodental evolution. Bioessays 23: 481–493.
Meyer A, Kocher TD, Basasibwaki P, Wilson AC (1990). Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences. Nature 347: 550–553.
Miller CT, Yelon D, Stainier DY, Kimmel CB (2003). Two endothelin 1 effectors, hand2 and bapx1, pattern ventral pharyngeal cartilage and the jaw joint. Development 130: 1353–1365.
Mohrlen F, Hutter H, Zwilling R (2003). The astacin protein family in Caenorhabditis elegans. Eur J Biochem 270: 4909–4920.
Monsoro-Burq AH, Duprez D, Watanabe Y, Bontoux M, Vincent C, Brickell P et al (1996). The role of bone morphogenetic proteins in vertebral development. Development 122: 3607–3616.
Motta PJ (1982). Functional morphology of the head of the inertial suction feeding butterflyfis, Chaetodon miliaris (Perciformes, Chaetodontidae). J Morph 174: 283–312.
Olson E, Miller R (1958). Morphological Integration. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Orr HA (1998). Testing natural selection vs genetic drift in phenotypic evolution using quantitative trait locus data. Genetics 149: 2099–2104.
Otten E (1983). The jaw mechanism during growth of a generalized Haplochromis species: H. elegans Trewavas, 1933 (Pisces, Cichlidae). Neth J Zool 33: 55–98.
Peters H, Neubuser A, Kratochwil K, Balling R (1998). Pax9-deficient mice lack pharyngeal pouch derivatives and teeth and exhibit craniofacial and limb abnormalities. Genes Dev 12: 2735–2747.
Peters H, Wilm B, Sakai N, Imai K, Maas R, Balling R (1999). Pax1 and Pax9 synergistically regulate vertebral column development. Development 126: 5399–5408.
Pizette S, Niswander L (2000). BMPs are required at two steps of limb chondrogenesis: formation of prechondrogenic condensations and their differentiation into chondrocytes. Dev Biol 219: 237–249.
Reinthal PN (1990). The feeding habits of a group of tropical herbivorous rock-dwelling cichlid fishes from Lake Malawi, Africa. Environ Biol Fish 27: 215–233.
Renn SC, Aubin-Horth N, Hofmann HA (2004). Biologically meaningful expression profiling across species using heterologous hybridization to a cDNA microarray. BMC Genom 5: 42.
Ribbink AJ, Marsh AC, Ribbink CC, Sharp BJ (1983). A preliminary survey of the cichlid fishes of rocky habitats in Lake Malawi. S Afr J Zool 18: 149–310.
Ruber L, Verheyen E, Meyer A (1999). Replicated evolution of trophic specializations in an endemic cichlid fish lineage from Lake Tanganyika. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 10230–10235.
Salzburger W, Mack T, Verheyen E, Meyer A (2005). Out of Tanganyika: genesis, explosive speciation, key-innovations and phylogeography of the haplochromine cichlid fishes. BMC Evol Biol 5: 17.
Sarimski K (2004). Communicative competence and behavioural phenotype in children with Smith-Magenis syndrome. Genet Couns 15: 347–355.
Schneider RA, Helms JA (2003). The cellular and molecular origins of beak morphology. Science 299: 565–568.
Semba I, Nonaka K, Takahashi I, Takahashi K, Dashner R, Shum L et al (2000). Positionally-dependent chondrogenesis induced by BMP4 is co-regulated by Sox9 and Msx2. Dev Dynam 217: 401–414.
Shum L, Wang X, Kane AA, Nuckolls GH (2003). BMP4 promotes chondrocyte proliferation and hypertrophy in the endochondral cranial base. Int J Dev Biol 47: 423–431.
Sire JY, Huysseune A (2003). Formation of dermal skeletal and dental tissues in fish: a comparative and evolutionary approach. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 78: 219–249.
Streelman JT, Albertson RC (2006). Evolution of Novelty in the Cichlid Dentition. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 22 Mar [E-pub ahead of print].
Streelman JT, Webb JF, Albertson RC, Kocher TD (2003). The cusp of evolution and development: a model of cichlid tooth shape diversity. Evol Dev 5: 600–608.
Suda Y, Nakabayashi J, Matsuo I, Aizawa S (1999). Functional equivalency between Otx2 and Otx1 in development of the rostral head. Development 126: 743–757.
Terai Y, Morikawa N, Okada N (2002). The evolution of the pro-domain of bone morphogenetic protein 4 (Bmp4) in an explosively speciated lineage of East African cichlid fishes. Mol Biol Evol 19: 1628–1632.
Thesleff I, Sharpe P (1997). Signalling networks regulating dental development. Mech Dev 67: 111–123.
Trainor PA, Melton KR, Manzanares M (2003). Origins and plasticity of neural crest cells and their roles in jaw and craniofacial evolution. Int J Dev Biol 47: 541–553.
Tucker AS, Sharpe PT (1999). Molecular genetics of tooth morphogenesis and patterning: the right shape in the right place. J Dent Res 78: 826–834.
Wagner GP (1996). Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. Am Zool 36: 36–43.
Wainwright PC, Shaw SS (1999). Morphological basis of kinematic diversity in feeding sunfishes. J Exp Biol 22: 3101–3110.
Wainwright PC, Bellwood DR, Westneat MW, Grubich JR, Hoey AS (2004). A functional morphospace for the skull of labrid fishes: patterns of diversity in a complex biomechanical system. Biol J Linnean Soc 82: 1–25.
Watanabe M, Kobayashi N, Fujiyama A, Okada N (2003). Construction of a BAC library for Haplochromis chilotes, a cichlid fish from Lake Victoria. Genes Genet Syst 78: 103–105.
Westneat MW (1994). Transmission of force and velocity in the feeding mechanisms of labrid fishes. Zoomorph 114: 103–118.
Westneat MW (2003). A biomechanical model for analysis of muscle force, power output and lower jaw motion in fishes. J Theor Biol 223: 269–281.
Wilson J, Tucker AS (2004). Fgf and Bmp signals repress the expression of Bapx1 in the mandibular mesenchyme and control the position of the developing jaw joint. Dev Biol 266: 138–150.
Wu P, Jiang TX, Suksaweang S, Widelitz RB, Chuong CM (2004). Molecular shaping of the beak. Science 305: 1465–1466.
Zhao Z, Lee CC, Jiralerspong S, Juyal RC, Lu F, Baldini A et al (1995). The gene for a human microfibril-associated glycoprotein is commonly deleted in Smith-Magenis syndrome patients. Hum Mol Genet 4: 589–597.
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 9905127 and 0445212 awarded to TDK, and by the National Institutes of Health through an Institutional Postdoctoral Training Grant (T32 DE08327) awarded to the Forsyth Institute, which supports RCA. The authors wish to thank JT Streelman for permission to adapt and reproduce Figure 3, and for insightful discussions on much of the material presented here. This manuscript was also much improved by the thoughtful comments of two anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Albertson, R., Kocher, T. Genetic and developmental basis of cichlid trophic diversity. Heredity 97, 211–221 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800864
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800864
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
East African cichlid fishes
EvoDevo (2023)
-
Genetic mapping of craniofacial traits in the Mexican tetra reveals loci associated with bite differences between cave and surface fish
BMC Ecology and Evolution (2023)
-
Expression variations in ectodysplasin-A gene (eda) may contribute to morphological divergence of scales in haplochromine cichlids
BMC Ecology and Evolution (2022)
-
A phylogeographic assessment of the greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) across South Africa
Conservation Genetics (2022)
-
Divergence in larval jaw gene expression reflects differential trophic adaptation in haplochromine cichlids prior to foraging
BMC Evolutionary Biology (2019)