Nature Publishing Group, publisher of Nature, and other science journals and reference works
Nature
my account e-alerts subscribe register
   
Monday 09 November 2009
Journal Home
Current Issue
AOP
Archive
Download PDF
References
Export citation
Export references
Send to a friend
More articles like this

Letters to Nature
Nature 357, 339 - 342 (28 May 1992); doi:10.1038/357339a0

Changing role of even-skipped during the evolution of insect pattern formation

Nipam H. Patel*†, Eldon E. Ball*‡ & Corey S. Goodman*

*Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, 519 LSA, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
Carnegie Institution, 115 West University Parkway, Baltimore, Maryland 21210, USA
Molecular Neurobiology Group, Research School of Biological Sciences, PO Box 475, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2601, Australia

THE development of Drosophila is typical of the so-called long germband mode of insect development, in which the pattern of segments is established by the end of the blastoderm stage1,2. Short germband insects, such as the grasshopper Schistocerca americana, by contrast, generate all or most of their metameric pattern after the blastoderm stage by the sequential addition of segments during caudal elongation3. This difference is discernible at the molecular level in the pattern of initiation of the segment polarity gene engrailed 4, and the homeotic gene abdominal-A (ref. 5). For example, in both types of insects, engrailed is expressed by the highly conserved germband stage4,6 in a pattern of regularly spaced stripes, one stripe per segment7–9. In Drosophila, the complete pattern is visible by the end of the blastoderm stage, although engrailed appears initially in alternate segments in a pair-rule pattern9–10 that reflects its known control by pair-rule genes such as even-skipped 11*15. In contrast, in the grasshopper, the engrailed stripes appear one at a time after the blastoderm stage as the embryo elongates4. To address the molecular basis for this difference, we have cloned the grasshopper homologue of the Drosophila pair-rule gene even-skipped and show that it does not serve a pair-rule function in early development, although it does have a similar function in both insects during neurogenesis later in development.

------------------

References
1. Ingham, P. Nature 335, 25−34 (1988). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
2. Akam, M. Development 101, 1−22 (1987). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
3. Sander, K. Adv. Insect Physiol. 12, 125−238 (1976).
4. Patel, N. H., Kornberg, T. B. & Goodman, C. S. Development 107, 201−212 (1989). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
5. Tear, G., Akam, M. & Martinez-Arias, A. Development 110, 915−925 (1990). | PubMed | ChemPort |
6. Sander, K. Development 104, (suppl.) 112−121 (1988).
7. Kornberg, T., Siden, I., O'Farrell, P. H. & Simon, M. Cell 40, 45−53 (1985). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
8. Fjose, A., McGinnis, W. & Gehring, W. J. Nature 313, 284−289 (1985). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
9. DiNardo, S., Kuner, J., Theis, J. & O'Farrell, P. H. Cell 43, 59−69 (1985). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
10. Weir, M. P. & Kornberg, T. Nature 318, 433−439 (1985). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
11. DiNardo, S. & O'Farrell, P. H. Genes Dev. 1, 1212−1225 (1987). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
12. Lawrence, P. A., Johnston, P., Macdonald, P. & Struhl, G. Nature 328, 440−442 (1987). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
13. Macdonald, P., Ingham, P. & Struhl, G. Cell 47, 721−734 (1986). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
14. Frasch, M., Hoey, T., Rushlow, C., Doyle, H. & Levine, M. EMB0 J. 6, 749−759 (1987). | ChemPort |
15. Frasch, M., Warrior, R., Tugwood, J. & Levine, M. Genes Dev. 2, 1824−1838 (1988). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
16. Doe, C. Q., Smouse, D. & Goodman, C. S. Nature 333, 376−378 (1988). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
17. Thomas, J. B., Bastiani, M. J., Bate, C. M. & Goodman, C. S. Nature 310, 203−207 (1984). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
18. Ruiz i Altaba, A. & Melton, D. A. Development 106, 173−183 (1989). | PubMed | ChemPort |
19. Bastian, H. & Gruss, P. EMBO J. 9, 1839−1852 (1990). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
20. Dush, M. K. & Martin, G. M. Devl Biol. (in the press).
21. Ruiz i Altaba, A. & Melton, D. A. Cell 57, 317−326 (1989). | PubMed | ChemPort |
22. Ruiz i Altaba, A. & Melton, D. A. Trends Genet. 6, 57−64 (1990). | PubMed |
23. D'Esposito, M. et al. Genomics 10, 43−50 (1991). | PubMed |
24. Boncinelli, E., Simeone, A., Acampora, D. & Mavilio, F. Trends Genet. 7, 329−334 (1991). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
25. Cavener, D. R. Nucleic Acids Res. 15, 1353−1361 (1989).
26. Grenningloh, G., Rehm, E. J. & Goodman, C. S. Cell 67, 45−57 (1991). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
27. Snow, P. M. et al. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 85, 5291−5295 (1988). | ChemPort |
28. Nilsson, B. & Abrahmsen, L. Meth. Enzym. 185, 144−161 (1990). | PubMed | ChemPort |
29. Koerner, T. J., Hill, J. E., Meyers, A. M. & Tzagoloff, A. Meth. Enzym. 194, 477−490 (1991). | PubMed | ChemPort |
30. Patel, N. H. et al. Cell 58, 955−968 (1989). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |



© 1992 Nature Publishing Group
Privacy Policy