Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Hox genes and the diversification of insect and crustacean body plans

Abstract

CRUSTACEANS and insects share a common origin of segmentation1,2, but the specialization of trunk segments appears to have arisen independently in insects and various crustacean subgroups3,4. Such macroevolutionary changes in body architecture may be investigated by comparative studies of conserved genetic markers5á¤-7. The Hox genes are well suited for this purpose, as they determine positional identity along the body axis in a wide range of animals8á¤-10. Here we examine the expression of four Hox genes in the branchiopod crustacean Artemia frandscana, and compare this with Hox expression patterns from insects. In Artemia the three ᤘtrunkᤙ genes Antp, Ubx and abdA are expressed in largely overlapping domains in the uniform thoracic region, whereas in insects they specify distinct segment types within the thorax and abdomen. Our comparisons suggest a multistep process for the diversification of these Hox gene functions, involving early differences in tissue specificity and the later acquisition of a role in defining segmental differences within the trunk. We propose that the branchiopod thorax may be homologous to the entire pregenital (thoracic and abdominal) region of the insect trunk.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dohle, W. & Scholtz, G. Development 104 (suppl.), 147–160 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Patel, N. H., Kornberg, T. B. & Goodman, C. S. Development 107, 201–212 (1989).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Calman, W. T. Crustacea (Black, London, 1909).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Walossek, D. Fossils and Strata 32, 1–202 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Averof, M. & Akam, M. Curr. Biol. 3, 73–78 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Slack, J. M. W., Holland, P. W. H. & Graham, C. F. Nature 361, 490–492 (1993).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Arendt, D. & Nubler-Jung, K. Nature 371, 26 (1994).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lewis, E. B. Nature 276, 567–570 (1978).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Akam, M., Dawson, I. & Tear, G. Development 104 (suppl.), 123–133 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  10. McGinnis, W. & Krumlauf, R. Cell 68, 283–302 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Akam, M. et al. Development 120 (suppl.), 209–215 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Andersen, D. T. Aust. J. Zool. 15, 47–91 (1967).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Manzanares, M., Marco, R. & Garesse, R. Development 118, 1209–1219 (1993).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kelsh, R., Weinzierl, R. O. J., White, R. A. H. & Akam, M. Devl Genet. 15, 19–31 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Warren, R. W., Nagy, L., Selegue, J., Bates, J. & Carroll, S. Nature 372, 458–461 (1994).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Snodgrass, R. E. Comparative Studies on the Head or Mandibulate Arthropods (Comstock, New York, 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mahaffey, J. W., Diederich, R. J. & Kaufman, T. C. Development 105, 167–174 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Beeman, R. W., Stuart, J. J., Brown, S. J. & Denell, R. E. BioEssays 15, 439–444 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ueno, K., Hui, C.-C. Fukuta, M. & Suzuki, Y. Development 114, 555–563 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Karch, F., Bender, W. & Weiffenbach, B. Genes Dev. 4, 1573–1588 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tear, G., Akam, M. & Martinez-Arias, A. Development 110, 915–925 (1990).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Li, X. & Noll, M. Nature 367, 83–87 (1994).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rothe, M., Pehl, M., Taubert, H. & Jackle, H. Nature 359, 156–159 (1992).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Castelli-Gair, J., Greig, S., Micklem, G. & Akam, M. Development 120, 1983–1995 (1994).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Vachon, G. et al. Cell 71, 437–450 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jurgens, G. & Hartenstein, V. in The Development of Drosophila melanogaster (eds Bate, M. & Martinez-Arias, A.) 687–746 (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Scourfield, D. J. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B214, 153–187 (1926).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Riek, E. F. Rec. S. Aust. Mus. 27, 313–321 (1968).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McNamara, K. J. & Trewin, N. H. Palaeontology 36, 319–335 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dohle, W. Myriapoda and the Ancestry of Insects (Manchester Polytechnic, Manchester, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Averof, M., Akam, M. Hox genes and the diversification of insect and crustacean body plans. Nature 376, 420–423 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1038/376420a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/376420a0

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing