Abstract
The reaction norms in Drosophila melanogaster of thorax length, wing length and cell size were determined for 28 isofemale lines from three populations to investigate the role of cell size in determining the response of body size to temperature during the preimaginal stages. Both overall level and plasticity of the reaction norms of thorax length and wing length are highly correlated, leading to a relatively constant wing-thorax ratio between lines. Genetic differences in overall level of wing size reaction norms are mainly caused by differences in cell number. The response of wing size to temperature consists of changes in cell size and, to a lesser extent, cell number. The cellular basis of genetic differences in plasticity shows a transition point at an intermediate level. In steeper reaction norms, genetic differences in plasticity result from differences in the plasticity of cell size, whereas less steep reaction norms only differ in the plasticity of cell number. A significant partial correlation between wing length plasticity and cell size plasticity, correcting for thorax length plasticity, indicates a role of cell size in determining the wing-thorax ratio.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Anderson, W W. 1966. Genetic divergence in M. Vethu-khiv's experimental populations of Drosophila pseudo-obscura. 3. Divergence in body size. Genet Res, 7, 255–266.
Alpatov, W W. 1930. Phenotypic variation in body and cell size of Drosophila melanogaster. Biol Bull 58, 85–103.
Berven, K A, Gill, D E, and Smith-Gill, S J. 1979. Countergradient selection in the green tree frog, Rana clamitans. Evolution, 33, 609–623.
Capy, P, Pla, E, and David, J R. 1993. Phenotypic and genetic variability of morphometrical traits in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. I. Geographic variations. Génét Sél Évol, 25, 517–536.
Cavicchi, S, Guerra, D, Giorgi, G, and Pezzoli, C. 1985. Temperature-related divergence in experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster. I. Genetic and developmental basis of wing size and shape variation. Genetics, 109, 665–689.
Coyne, J A, and Beecham, E. 1987. Heritability of two morphological characters within and among natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 117, 727–737.
David, J R, Allemand, R, Van Herrewege, J, and Cohet, Y. 1983. Ecophysiology: abiotic factors. In: Ashburner, M., Carson, H. L. and Thompson, J. N., Jr (eds) The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, Vol. 3d, pp. 106–154. Academic Press, London.
David, J R, Moreteau, B, Gauthier, J P, Pétavy, G, Stockel, A, and Imasheva, A G. 1994. Reaction norms of size characters in relation to growth temperature in Drosophila melanogaster. an isofemale lines analysis. Génét Sél Evol 26, 229–251.
Dobzhansky, TH. 1928. The influence of the quantity and quality of chromosomal material on the size of the cells in Drosophila melanogaster. W Roux' Archiv Entwicklungsmech, 115, 363–377.
Fristrom, J W, Fristrom, D K, Fekete, E, and Kuniyuki, A H. 1977. The mechanism of evagination of imaginal discs of Drosophila melanogaster. Am Zool, 17, 671–684.
Gonzalez-Gaitan, M, Paz Capdevila, M, and Garcia-Bellido, A. 1994. Cell proliferation patterns in the wing imaginal disc of Drosophila. Mech Dev, 40, 183–200.
James, A C, Azevedo, R B R, and Partridge, L. 1995. Cellular basis and developmental timing in a size cline at Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 140, 659–666.
Kuo, T, and Larsen, E. 1987. The cellular basis of wing size modification in Drosophila: the effect of the miniature gene, crowding, and temperature. Devi Genet, 8, 91–98.
Levins, R. 1968. Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Masry, A M, and Robertson, F W. 1979. Cell size and number in the Drosophila wing. III. The influence of temperature differences during development. Egypt J Gen Cyt, 8, 71–79.
Maynard Smith, J M, Burian, R, Kauffman, S, Alberch, P, Campbell, J, and Goodman, B. 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution. Q Rev Biol, 60, 265–287.
Noach, E J K, De Jong, G, and Scharloo, W. 1996. Phenotypic plasticity in morphological traits in two populations of Drosophila melanogaster. J Evol Biol, 9, 831–844.
Pantalouris, E M. 1957. Size response of developing Drosophila to temperature changes. J Genet 55, 507–510.
Partridge, L, Barrie, B, Fowler, K, and French, V. 1994. Evolution and development of body size and cell size in Drosophila melanogaster in response to temperature. Evolution, 48, 1269–1276.
Reed, S C, Williams, C M, and Chadwick, L E. 1942. Frequency of wing beat as a character for separating species races and geographic varieties of Drosophila. Genetics, 27, 349–361.
Robertson, F W. 1959. Studies in quantitative inheritance. XII. Cell size and number in relation to genetic and environmental variation of body size in Drosophila. Genetics, 44, 869–896.
Sang, J H. 1956. The quantitative nutritional requirements of Drosophila melanogaster. J Exp Biol, 33, 45–72.
Scharloo, W. 1987. Constraints in selection response. In: Loeschcke, V. (ed.) Genetic Constraints on Adaptive Evolution, pp. 125–150. Springer, Berlin.
Scharloo, W. 1990. The effect of developmental constraints on selection response. In: Maynard Smith, J. and Vida, G. (eds) Organizational Constraints on the Dynamics of Evolution, pp. 197–210. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Sokal, R R, and Rohlf, F J. 1981. Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman, New York.
Spss Inc. 1992. spss/pc+Base Manual version 4.0. SPSS, Chicago.
Tantawy, A O, and Mallah, G S. 1961. Studies on natural populations of Drosophila. I. Heat resistance and geographic variation in Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans. Evolution, 15, 1–14.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Moed, G., De Jong, G. & Scharloo, W. The phenotypic plasticity of wing size in Drosophila melanogaster: the cellular basis of its genetic variation. Heredity 79, 260–267 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1997.153
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1997.153
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Size relationships of different body parts in the three dipteran species Drosophila melanogaster, Ceratitis capitata and Musca domestica
Development Genes and Evolution (2016)
-
Reproductive allometry does not explain the temperature-size rule in water striders (Aquarius remigis)
Evolutionary Ecology (2012)
-
The impact of larval predators and competitors on the morphology and fitness of juvenile treefrogs
Oecologia (2003)
-
Latitudinal clines inDrosophila melanogaster: Body size, allozyme frequencies, inversion frequencies, and the insulin-signalling pathway
Journal of Genetics (2003)