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.

The gene cortex controls mimicry and crypsis in butterflies and moths

Nature volume 534, pages 106–110 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The wing patterns of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) are diverse and striking examples of evolutionary diversification by natural selection1,2. Lepidopteran wing colour patterns are a key innovation, consisting of arrays of coloured scales. We still lack a general understanding of how these patterns are controlled and whether this control shows any commonality across the 160,000 moth and 17,000 butterfly species. Here, we use fine-scale mapping with population genomics and gene expression analyses to identify a gene, cortex, that regulates pattern switches in multiple species across the mimetic radiation in Heliconius butterflies. cortex belongs to a fast-evolving subfamily of the otherwise highly conserved fizzy family of cell-cycle regulators3, suggesting that it probably regulates pigmentation patterning by regulating scale cell development. In parallel with findings in the peppered moth (Biston betularia)4, our results suggest that this mechanism is common within Lepidoptera and that cortex has become a major target for natural selection acting on colour and pattern variation in this group of insects.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Figure 1: A homologous genomic region controls a diversity of phenotypes across the Lepidoptera.
Figure 2: Association analyses across the genomic region known to contain major colour pattern loci in Heliconius.
Figure 3: Differential gene expression across the genomic region known to contain major colour pattern loci in H. melpomene.
Figure 4: In situ hybridizations of cortex in hindwings of final instar larvae.

Accession codes

Primary accessions

European Nucleotide Archive

GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ

Gene Expression Omnibus

NCBI Reference Sequence

Data deposits

Short read sequence data generated for this study are available from ENA (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena) under study accession PRJEB8011 and PRJEB12740 (see Supplementary Table 1 for previously published data accessions). The updated Cr contig is deposited in Genbank with accession KC469893.2. The assembled H. melpomene fosmid sequences are deposited in Genbank with accessions KU514430–KU514438. The microarray data are deposited in GEO with accessions GSM1563402–GSM1563497.

References

  1. Cook, L. M., Grant, B. S., Saccheri, I. J. & Mallet, J. Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus. Biol. Lett. 8, 609–612 (2012)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jiggins, C. D. Ecological speciation in mimetic butterflies. Bioscience 58, 541–548 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dawson, I. A., Roth, S. & Artavanis-Tsakonas, S. The Drosophila cell cycle gene fizzy is required for normal degradation of cyclins A and B during mitosis and has homology to the CDC20 gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Cell Biol. 129, 725–737 (1995)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van’t Hof, A. E. et al. The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature17951 (this issue)

  5. Joron, M. et al. A conserved supergene locus controls colour pattern diversity in Heliconius butterflies. PLoS Biol. 4, e303 (2006)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sheppard, P. M., Turner, J. R. G., Brown, K. S., Benson, W. W. & Singer, M. C. Genetics and the evolution of Müllerian mimicry in Heliconius butterflies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 308, 433–610 (1985)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nadeau, N. J. et al. Population genomics of parallel hybrid zones in the mimetic butterflies, H. melpomene and H. erato. Genome Res. 24, 1316–1333 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Beldade, P., Saenko, S. V., Pul, N. & Long, A. D. A. Gene-based linkage map for Bicyclus anynana butterflies allows for a comprehensive analysis of synteny with the lepidopteran reference genome. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000366 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. van’t Hof, A. E., Edmonds, N., Dalíková, M., Marec, F. & Saccheri, I. J. Industrial melanism in British peppered moths has a singular and recent mutational origin. Science 332, 958–960 (2011)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ito, K. et al. Mapping and recombination analysis of two moth colour mutations, Black moth and Wild wing spot, in the silkworm Bombyx mori. Heredity 116, 52–59 (2016)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Counterman, B. A. et al. Genomic hotspots for adaptation: the population genetics of Müllerian mimicry in Heliconius erato. PLoS Genet. 6, e1000796 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferguson, L. et al. Characterization of a hotspot for mimicry: assembly of a butterfly wing transcriptome to genomic sequence at the HmYb/Sb locus. Mol. Ecol. 19, 240–254 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Joron, M. et al. Chromosomal rearrangements maintain a polymorphic supergene controlling butterfly mimicry. Nature 477, 203–206 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hines, H. M. et al. Wing patterning gene redefines the mimetic history of Heliconius butterflies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19666–19671 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Pardo-Diaz, C. et al. Adaptive introgression across species boundaries in Heliconius butterflies. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002752 (2012)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wallbank, R. W. R. et al. Evolutionary novelty in a butterfly wing pattern through enhancer shuffling. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002353 (2016)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Maroja, L. S., Alschuler, R., McMillan, W. O. & Jiggins, C. D. Partial complementarity of the mimetic yellow bar phenotype in Heliconius butterflies. PLoS ONE 7, e48627 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. The Heliconius Genome Consortium. Butterfly genome reveals promiscuous exchange of mimicry adaptations among species. Nature 487, 94–98 (2012)

  19. Mallet, J. The genetics of warning colour in peruvian hybrid zones of Heliconius erato and H. melpomene. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 236, 163–185 (1989)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Reed, R. D. et al. optix drives the repeated convergent evolution of butterfly wing pattern mimicry. Science 333, 1137–1141 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Barford, D. Structural insights into anaphase-promoting complex function and mechanism. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 3605–3624 (2011)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chu, T., Henrion, G., Haegeli, V. & Strickland, S. Cortex, a Drosophila gene required to complete oocyte meiosis, is a member of the Cdc20/fizzy protein family. Genesis 29, 141–152 (2001)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pesin, J. A. & Orr-Weaver, T. L. Developmental role and regulation of cortex, a meiosis-specific anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome activator. PLoS Genet. 3, e202 (2007)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Swan, A. & Schüpbach, T. The Cdc20/Cdh1-related protein, Cort, cooperates with Cdc20/Fzy in cyclin destruction and anaphase progression in meiosis I and II in Drosophila. Development 134, 891–899 (2007)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Martin, A. et al. Diversification of complex butterfly wing patterns by repeated regulatory evolution of a Wnt ligand. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12632–12637 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Koch, P. B., Lorenz, U., Brakefield, P. M. & ffrench-Constant, R. H. Butterfly wing pattern mutants: developmental heterochrony and co-ordinately regulated phenotypes. Dev. Genes Evol. 210, 536–544 (2000)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gilbert, L. E., Forrest, H. S., Schultz, T. D. & Harvey, D. J. Correlations of ultrastructure and pigmentation suggest how genes control development of wing scales of Heliconius butterflies. J. Res. Lepid. 26, 141–160 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mallet, J. & Barton, N. H. Strong natural selection in a warning-color hybrid zone. Evolution 43, 421–431 (1989)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wahlberg, N., Wheat, C. W. & Peña, C. Timing and patterns in the taxonomic diversification of Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths). PLoS ONE 8, e80875 (2013)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Surridge, A. K. et al. Characterisation and expression of microRNAs in developing wings of the neotropical butterfly Heliconius melpomene. BMC Genomics 12, 62 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Supple, M. A. et al. Genomic architecture of adaptive color pattern divergence and convergence in Heliconius butterflies. Genome Res. 23, 1248–1257 (2013)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. de la Bastide, M. & McCombie, W. R. Assembling genomic DNA sequences with PHRAP. Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics 11, 11.4 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gordon, D., Abajian, C. & Green, P. Consed: a graphical tool for sequence finishing. Genome Res. 8, 195–202 (1998)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Magoč, T. & Salzberg, S. L. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27, 2957–2963 (2011)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Andrews, S. FastQChttp://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/ (2011)

  37. Langmead, B., Trapnell, C., Pop, M. & Salzberg, S. L. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 10, R25 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Trapnell, C., Pachter, L. & Salzberg, S. L. TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-Seq. Bioinformatics 25, 1105–1111 (2009)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Trapnell, C. et al. Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotechnol. 28, 511–515 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Holt, C. & Yandell, M. MAKER2: an annotation pipeline and genome-database management tool for second-generation genome projects. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 491 (2011)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Slater, G. S. & Birney, E. Automated generation of heuristics for biological sequence comparison. BMC Bioinformatics 6, 31 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Lunter, G. & Goodson, M. Stampy: A statistical algorithm for sensitive and fast mapping of Illumina sequence reads. Genome Res. 21, 936–939 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. DePristo, M. A. et al. A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data. Nature Genet. 43, 491–498 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nadeau, N. J. et al. Genomic islands of divergence in hybridizing Heliconius butterflies identified by large-scale targeted sequencing. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 343–353 (2012)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Martin, S. H. et al. Genome-wide evidence for speciation with gene flow in Heliconius butterflies. Genome Res. 23, 1817–1828 (2013)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Aulchenko, Y. S., Ripke, S., Isaacs, A. & van Duijn, C. M. GenABEL: an R library for genome-wide association analysis. Bioinformatics 23, 1294–1296 (2007)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Smyth, G. K. in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Solutions Using R and Bioconductor (eds Gentleman, R., Carey, V. J., Huber, W., Irizarry, R. A. & Dudoit, S. ) 397–420 (Springer, 2005)

  49. Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57, 289–300 (1995)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2011)

  51. Darling, A. C. E., Mau, B., Blattner, F. R. & Perna, N. T. Mauve: multiple alignment of conserved genomic sequence with rearrangements. Genome Res. 14, 1394–1403 (2004)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Jurka, J. et al. Repbase Update, a database of eukaryotic repetitive elements. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 110, 462–467 (2005)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lavoie, C. A., Platt, R. N., Novick, P. A., Counterman, B. A. & Ray, D. A. Transposable element evolution in Heliconius suggests genome diversity within Lepidoptera. Mob. DNA 4, 21 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Li, B. & Dewey, C. N. RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 323 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Anders, S. & Huber, W. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol. 11, R106 (2010)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Hardcastle, T. J. & Kelly, K. A. baySeq: Empirical Bayesian methods for identifying differential expression in sequence count data. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 422 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Li, H. et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Anders, S., Pyl, P. T. & Huber, W. HTSeq—A Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 31, 166–169 (2015)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Armougom, F. et al. Expresso: automatic incorporation of structural information in multiple sequence alignments using 3D-Coffee. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, W604–W608 (2006)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Di Tommaso, P. et al. T-Coffee: a web server for the multiple sequence alignment of protein and RNA sequences using structural information and homology extension. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, W13–17 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Saski for assembly of the H. erato BACs; M. Abanto and A. Tapia for assistance with raising butterflies; M. Chouteau, J. Morris and K. Dasmahapatra for providing larvae for in situ hybridizations; A. Morrison, R. Tetley, S. Carl and H. Wegener for assistance with laboratory work; S. Baxter for the H. melpomene fosmid libraries; and the governments of Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru for permission to collect butterflies. This work was funded by a Leverhulme Trust award (RPG-2014-167), BBSRC (H01439X/1), ERC (SpeciationGenetics 339873), and NERC small project (MGF 280) grants to C.D.J., NSF grants (DEB 1257689, IOS 1052541) to W.O.M., an ERC starting grant (StG-243179) to M.J. and French National Agency for Research (ANR) grants to M.J. (ANR-12-JSV7-0005) and V.L. (ANR-13-JSV7-0003-01). N.J.N. is funded by a NERC fellowship (NE/K008498/1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN UK,

    Nicola J. Nadeau

  2. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panamá, Apartado Postal 0843-00153, República de Panamá

    Nicola J. Nadeau, Megan A. Supple, Richard W. R. Wallbank, Joseph J. Hanly, Richard M. Merrill, W. Owen McMillan & Chris D. Jiggins

  3. Biology Program, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Universidad del Rosario, Cra. 24 No 63C-69, Bogotá D.C., 111221, Colombia

    Carolina Pardo-Diaz & Camilo Salazar

  4. Institut de Systématique, Evolution et Biodiversité (UMR 7205 CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE, Sorbonne Université), Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CP50, 57 rue Cuvier, Paris, 75005, France

    Annabel Whibley, Suzanne V. Saenko, Violaine Llaurens & Mathieu Joron

  5. Cell and Developmental Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich, NR4 7UH, Norfolk, UK

    Annabel Whibley

  6. Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, 134 Linnaeus Way, Acton, ACT, 2601, Australia

    Megan A. Supple

  7. Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK

    Richard W. R. Wallbank, Joseph J. Hanly, Richard M. Merrill & Chris D. Jiggins

  8. Energy and Resources Group, University of California at Berkeley, California, 94720, USA

    Grace C. Wu

  9. Department of Biology, Williams College, Williamstown, 01267, Massachusetts, USA

    Luana Maroja

  10. Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Rd, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK

    Laura Ferguson

  11. Penn State University, 517 Mueller, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802, USA

    Heather Hines

  12. School of Biosciences, University of Exeter in Cornwall, Penryn, TR10 9FE, Cornwall, UK

    Andrea J. Dowling & Richard H. ffrench-Constant

  13. Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE, UMR 5175 CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier, EPHE), 1919 route de Mende, Montpellier, 34293, France

    Mathieu Joron

Authors
  1. Nicola J. Nadeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carolina Pardo-Diaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annabel Whibley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Megan A. Supple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Suzanne V. Saenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richard W. R. Wallbank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Grace C. Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Luana Maroja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Laura Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Joseph J. Hanly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Heather Hines
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Camilo Salazar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Richard M. Merrill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Andrea J. Dowling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Richard H. ffrench-Constant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Violaine Llaurens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Mathieu Joron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. W. Owen McMillan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Chris D. Jiggins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.J.N. performed the association analyses, 5′ RACE, RT–PCR and qRT–PCR and prepared the manuscript. N.J.N. and C.D.J. co-ordinated the research. C.P.-D. performed and analysed the microarray and RNA-seq experiments. A.W. performed the H. numata association analysis. M.A.S. assembled and annotated the HeCr BAC reference and the H. erato alignments. S.V.S. performed in situ hybridizations. R.W.R.W. performed the transgenic experiments and analysis of de novo assembled sequences and fosmids together with J.J.H. G.C.W. and L.F. initially identified splicing variants of cortex. L.M. performed crosses between H. melpomene races. H.H. screened the HeCr BAC library. C.S. and R.M.M. provided samples. A.J.D. contributed to the H. melpomene BAC sequencing and annotation. R.H.f.-C., M.J., V.L., W.O.M. and C.D.J. are PIs who obtained funding and led the project elements. All authors commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Nicola J. Nadeau or Chris D. Jiggins.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 H. melpomene race-associated cortex splicing variation.

a, Exons and splice variants of cortex in H. melpomene. Orientation is reversed with respect to Figs 2 and 4, with transcription going from left to right. SNPs showing the strongest associations with phenotype are shown with stars. b, Differential expression of two regions of cortex between whole hindwings of H. melpomene amaryllis and H. melpomene aglaope (n = 11 and n = 10, respectively). Box plots are standard (median; seventy-fifth and twenty-fifth percentiles; maximum and minimum excluding outliers (shown as discrete points)). ***P < 0.0001, *P < 0.05, Wilcoxon rank sum test. c, Expression of a cortex isoform lacking exon 3 is found in H. melpomene aglaope but not H. melpomene amaryllis hindwings. d, Expression of an isoform lacking exon 5 is found in H. melpomene rosina but not H. melpomene melpomene hindwings. Green triangles indicate predicted start codons and red triangles predicted stop codons, with usage dependent on which exons are present in the isoform. Schematics of the targeted exons are shown for each (q)RT–PCR product; black triangles indicate the positions of the primers used in the assay.

Source data

Extended Data Figure 2 Alignments of de novo assembled fragments containing the top associated SNPs from H. melpomene and related taxa short-read data.

Identified indels do not show stronger associations with phenotype that those seen at SNPs (as shown in Extended Data Table 2), although some near-perfect associations are seen in fragment C. Black regions, missing data; yellow boxes, individuals with a yellow hindwing bar; blue boxes, individuals with a yellow forewing band.

Extended Data Figure 3 Sequencing of long-range PCR products and fosmids spanning cortex.

a, Sequence read coverage from long-range PCR products across the cortex coding region from two H. melpomene races. b, Minor allele frequency difference from these reads between H. melpomene aglaope and H. melpomene amaryllis. Exons of cortex are indicated by boxes, numbered as in Extended Data Fig. 2. c, Alignments of sequenced fosmids overlapping cortex from three H. melpomene (H. m.) individuals of difference races. No major rearrangements are observed, nor any major differences in transposable element (TE) content between closely related races with different colour patterns (melpomene/rosina or amaryllis/aglaope). H. melpomene amaryllis and rosina have the same phenotype, but do not share any transposable elements that are not present in the other races. Hm_BAC, BAC reference sequence; Hm_mel, melpomene from new unpublished assembly of H. melpomene genome51; Hm_ros, rosina (two different alleles were sequenced from this individual); Hm_ama, amaryllis (two non-overlapping clones were sequenced from this individual); Hm_agla, aglaope (four clones were sequenced from this individual, of which two represent alternative alleles). Alignments were performed with Mauve;coloured bars represent homologous genomic regions. cortex is annotated in black above each clone. Variable transposable elements are shown as coloured bars below each clone: red, Metulj-like non-LTR; yellow, Helitron-like DNA; grey, other.

Extended Data Figure 4 Expression array results for additional stages.

Array results are related to Fig. 4. a–g, Comparisons between races (H. melpomene plesseni and H. melpomene malleti) for three wing regions. h–n, Comparisons between proximal and distal forewing regions for each race. Significance values (−log10P) are shown separately for genes in the HmYb region from the gene array (a, d, f, h, k, m) and for the HmYb tiling array (b, e, g, i, l, n) for day 1 (a, b, h, i), day 5 (d, e, k, l) and day 7 (f, g, m, n) after pupation. The level of expression difference (log fold change) for tiling probes showing significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) is shown for day 1 (c and j) with probes in known cortex exons shown in dark colours and probes elsewhere shown as pale colours. P values are based on FDR-adjusted t-statistics.

Source data

Extended Data Figure 5 Alternative splicing of cortex.

a, Amplification of the whole cortex coding region, showing the diversity of isoforms and variation between individuals. b, Differences in splicing of exon 3 between H. melpomene aglaope and H. melpomene amaryllis. Products amplified with a primer spanning the exon 2–4 junction at three developmental stages. The lower panel shows verification of this assay by amplification between exons 2 and 4 for the same final instar larval samples (replicated in Extended Data Fig. 2c). c, Lack of consistent differences between H. melpomene melpomene and H. melpomene rosina in splicing of exon 3. Top panel shows products amplified with a primer spanning the exon 2–4 junction; lower panel shows the same samples amplified between exons 2 and 4. d, Differences in splicing of exon 5 between H. melpomene melpomene and H. melpomene rosina. Products amplified with a primer spanning the exon 4–6 junction at three developmental stages. e, Subset of samples from d amplified with primers between exons 4 and 6 for verification (middle, 24-h pupae samples are replicated in Extended Data Fig. 2d). f, Lack of consistent differences between H. melpomene aglaope and H. melpomene amaryllis in splicing of exon 5. Products amplified with a primer spanning the exon 4–6 junction. g, H. melpomene cythera also expresses the isoform lacking exon 5, while a pool of six H. melpomene malleti individuals do not. h, Expression of the isoform lacking exon 5 from an F2 H. melpomene melpomene × H. melpomene rosina cross. Individuals homozygous or heterozygous for the H. melpomene rosina HmYb allele express the isoform while those homozygous for the H. melpomene melpomene HmYb allele do not. i, Allele-specific expression of isoforms with and without exon 5. Heterozygous individuals (indicated with blue and red stars) express only the H. melpomene rosina allele in the isoform lacking exon 5 (G at highlighted position), while they express both alleles in the isoform containing exon 5 (G/A at this position).

Extended Data Figure 6 Phylogeny of fizzy family proteins and effects of expressing cortex in the Drosophila wing.

a, Neighbour joining phylogeny of fizzy family proteins including functionally characterized proteins (in bold) from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Homo sapiens and D. melanogaster as well as copies from the basal metazoan Trichoplax adhaerens and a range of annotated arthropod genomes (Daphnia pulex, Acyrthosiphon pisum, Pediculus humanus, Apis mellifera, Nasonia vitripennis, Anopheles gambiae and Tribolium castaneum) including the lepidoptera H. melpomene (in blue), D. plexippus and B. mori. Branch colours: dark blue, cdc20/fzy; light blue, rap; red, lepidopteran cortex. b–e, Ectopic expression of cortex in D. melanogaster. Drosophila cortex produces an irregular microchaete phenotype when expressed in the posterior compartment of the fly wing (c) whereas Heliconius cortex does not (d), when compared to no expression (b). A, anterior; P, posterior. Successful Heliconius cortex expression was confirmed by anti-HA immunohistochemistry in the last instar Drosophila larva wing imaginal disc (e, red), with DAPI staining in blue.

Extended Data Table 1 Genes in the Yb region and evidence for wing patterning control in Heliconius
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Locations of fixed or above-background SNPs and differentially expressed (DE) tiling array probes
Full size table
Extended Data Table 3 SNPs showing the strongest phenotypic associations in the H. melpomene/timareta/silvaniform comparison
Full size table
Extended Data Table 4 Transposable elements (TEs) found within the Yb region
Full size table

Related audio

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Results. (PDF 187 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

This file contains information on all individuals genotyped for the genotype-by-phenotype association analyses and study accessions for sequence read data. (XLSX 35 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

This file contains the information on all primers used. (XLSX 11 kb)

Supplementary Data 1

This file shows the alignment of fizzy family protein amino acid sequences, used to generate Extended Data Figure 6. (PDF 137 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nadeau, N., Pardo-Diaz, C., Whibley, A. et al. The gene cortex controls mimicry and crypsis in butterflies and moths. Nature 534, 106–110 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17961

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17961

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced 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