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.

Genetic variation of morphological scaling in Drosophila melanogaster

Heredity (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Morphological scaling relationships between the sizes of individual traits and the body captures the characteristic shape of a species, and their evolution is the primary mechanism of morphological diversification. However, we have almost no knowledge of the genetic variation of scaling, which is critical if we are to understand how scaling evolves. Here we explore the genetics of population scaling relationships (scaling relationships fit to multiple genetically-distinct individuals in a population) by describing the distribution of individual scaling relationships (genotype-specific scaling relationships that are unseen or cryptic). These individual scaling relationships harbor the genetic variation in the developmental mechanisms that regulate trait growth relative to body growth, and theoretical studies suggest that their distribution dictates how the population scaling relationship will respond to selection. Using variation in nutrition to generate size variation within 197 isogenic lineages of Drosophila melanogaster, we reveal extensive variation in the slopes of the wing-body and leg-body individual scaling relationships among genotypes. This variation reflects variation in the nutritionally-induced size plasticity of the wing, leg, and body. Surprisingly, we find that variation in the slope of individual scaling relationships primarily results from variation in nutritionally-induced plasticity of body size, not leg or wing size. These data allow us to predict how different selection regimes affect scaling in Drosophila, and is the first step in identifying the genetic targets of such selection. More generally, our approach provides a framework for understanding the genetic variation of scaling, an important prerequisite to explaining how selection changes scaling and morphology.

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

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

Fig. 1: Individual and population scaling relationships.
Fig. 2: The population scaling relationships of the wing and leg size against body size in Drosophila melanogaster.
Fig. 3: Distribution of individual scaling relationships among isogenic fly lineages.
Fig. 4: The relationship between mean relative wing and leg size and the slope of individual scaling relationships among isogenic fly lineages.
Fig. 5: Variation in slope among lineages reflects variation in wing-, leg- and body-size plasticity.

Data availability

All data as well as the R scripts used to analyze them are provided on Dryad (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.98sf7m0nd).

References

  • Baker RH, Wilkinson GS (2001) Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eye-span allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Evolution 55:1373–1385

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw 67

  • Bolstad GH, Cassara JA, Márquez E, Hansen TF, Linde K, van der, Houle D et al. (2015) Complex constraints on allometry revealed by artificial selection on the wing of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:13284–13289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant PJ, Schmidt O (1990) The genetic control of cell proliferation in Drosophila imaginal discs. J Cell Sci 1990:169–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casasa S, Moczek AP (2018) Insulin signalling’s role in mediating tissue-specific nutritional plasticity and robustness in the horn-polyphenic beetle Onthophagus taurus. Proc Biol Sci 285:20181631

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Casasa S, Schwab DB, Moczek AP (2017) Developmental regulation and evolution of scaling: novel insights through the study of Onthophagus beetles. Curr Opin Insect Sci 19:52–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • David JR, Yassin A, Moreteau J-C, Legout H, Moreteau B (2011) Thermal phenotypic plasticity of body size in Drosophila melanogaster: sexual dimorphism and genetic correlations. J Genet 90:295–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer AP, Ziabari OS, Swanson EM, Chawla A, Frankino WA, Shingleton AW (2016) Cryptic individual scaling relationships and the evolution of morphological scaling. Evolution 70:1703–1716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Emlen DJ, Warren IA, Johns A, Dworkin I, Lavine LC (2012) A mechanism of extreme growth and reliable signaling in sexually selected ornaments and weapons. Science 337:860–864

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frankino WA, Bakota E, Dworkin I, Wilkinson GS, Wolf JB, Shingleton AW (2019) Individual cryptic scaling relationships and the evolution of animal form. Integr Comp Biol 59:1411–1428

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Frankino WA, Zwaan BJ, Stern DL, Brakefield PM (2005) Natural selection and developmental constraints in the evolution of allometries. Science 307:718–720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Frankino WA, Zwaan BJ, Stern DL, Brakefield PM (2007) Internal and external constraints in the evolution of morphological allometries in a butterfly. Evolution 61:2958–2970

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gayon J (2000) History of the concept of allometry. Integr Comp Biol 40:748–758

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerken AR, Eller OC, Hahn DA, Morgan TJ (2015) Constraints, independence, and evolution of thermal plasticity: probing genetic architecture of long- and short-term thermal acclimation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:4399–4404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist GW, Huey RB (2004) Plastic and genetic variation in wing loading as a function of temperature within and among parallel clines in Drosophila subobscura. Integr Comp Biol 44:461–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1966) Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol Rev 41:587–638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1973) Positive allometry of antlers in the “Irish Elk”, Megaloceros giganteus. Nature 244:375–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grömping U (2006) Relative Importance for Linear Regression in R: the Package relaimpo. J Stat Softw 17:1–27

  • Hadfield JD (2010). MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmm R Package. J Stat Softw 33

  • Hillesheim E, Stearns S (1991) The responses of Drosophila melanogaster to artificial selection on body weight and its phenotypic plasticity in two larval food environments. Evolution 45:1909–1923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Houle D (1992) Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130:195–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Houle D, Jones LT, Fortune R, Sztepanacz JL (2019) Why does allometry evolve so slowly? Integr Comp Biol 59:1429–1440

  • Huxley JS (1924) Constant differential growth-ratios and their significance. Nature 114:895–896

  • Huxley JS (1932) Problems of relative growth. Methuen & Co Ltd, London p 316

  • Huxley JS, Tessier G (1936) Terminology of relative. Growth 137:780–781

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg C, Zimmermann M (1992) Static, ontogenic, and evolutionary allometry—a multivariate comparison in 9 species of water-striders. Am Nat 140:601–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafuente E, Duneau D, Beldade P (2018) Genetic basis of thermal plasticity variation in Drosophila melanogaster body size (GP Copenhaver, Ed.). PLoS Genet 14:e1007686

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lecheta MC, Awde DN, O’Leary TS, Unfried LN, Jacobs NA, Whitlock MH et al. (2020) Integrating GWAS and transcriptomics to identify the molecular underpinnings of thermal stress responses in Drosophila melanogaster. Front Genet 11:658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Luo J, Liu Y, Nässel DR (2013) Insulin/IGF-regulated size scaling of neuroendocrine cells expressing the bHLH transcription factor dimmed in Drosophila. PLoS Genet 9:e1004052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mackay TFC, Richards S, Stone EA, Barbadilla A, Ayroles JF, Zhu D et al. (2012) The Drosophila melanogaster genetic reference panel. Nature 482:173–178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nijhout HF, Riddiford LM, Mirth C, Shingleton AW, Suzuki Y, Callier V (2014) The developmental control of size in insects. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol 3:113–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien DM, Katsuki M, Emlen DJ (2017) Selection on an extreme weapon in the frog-legged leaf beetle (Sagra femorata). Evolution 71:2584–2598

  • Ohde T, Morita S, Shigenobu S, Morita J, Mizutani T, Gotoh H et al. (2018) Rhinoceros beetle horn development reveals deep parallels with dung beetles. PLoS Genet 14:e1007651

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Okada Y, Katsuki M, Okamoto N, Fujioka H, Okada K (2019) A specific type of insulin-like peptide regulates the conditional growth of a beetle weapon. PLoS Biol 17:e3000541

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Partridge L, Fowler K (1993) Responses and correlated responses to artificial selection on thorax length in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 47:213–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pelabon C, Firmat C, Bolstad GH, Voje KL, Houle D, Cassara J et al. (2014) Evolution of morphological allometry. (CW Fox and TA Mousseau, Eds.). Ann NY Acad Sci 1320:58–75

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman RH, Merenda PF, Gold RZ (1980) Introduction to bivariate and multivariate analysis. Scott, Foresman, Glenview IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson FW (1962) Changing the relative size of the body parts of Drosophila by selection. Genet Res 3:169–180

  • Shingleton AW (2010) Allometry: the study of biological scaling. Nat Ed Knowl 3:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Shingleton AW (2019) Symposium article: which line to follow? The utility of different line-fitting methods to capture the mechanism of morphological scaling. Integr Comp Biol 61:838

    Google Scholar 

  • Shingleton AW, Estep CM, Driscoll MV, Dworkin I (2009) Many ways to be small: different environmental regulators of size generate distinct scaling relationships in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Biol Sci 276:2625–2633

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shingleton AW, Frankino WA, Flatt T, Nijhout HF, Emlen DJ (2007) Size and shape: the developmental regulation of static allometry in insects. Bioessays 29:536–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shingleton AW, Tang HY (2012) Plastic flies: the regulation and evolution of trait variability in Drosophila. Fly 6:1–6

  • Stieper BC, Kupershtok M, Driscoll MV, Shingleton AW (2008) Imaginal discs regulate developmental timing in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Biol 321:18–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stillwell RC, Dworkin I, Shingleton AW, Frankino WA (2011) Experimental manipulation of body size to estimate morphological scaling relationships in Drosophila. J Vis Exp 56:e3162

  • Stillwell RC, Shingleton AW, Dworkin I, Frankino WA (2016) Tipping the scales: evolution of the allometric slope independent of average trait size. Evolution 70:433–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tang HY, Smith-Caldas MSB, Driscoll MV, Salhadar S, Shingleton AW (2011) FOXO regulates organ-specific phenotypic plasticity in Drosophila. PLoS Genet 7:e1002373

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Testa ND, Ghosh SM, Shingleton AW (2013) Sex-specific weight loss mediates sexual size dimorphism in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 8:e58936

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson DW, Bonner JT (1992) In: Bonner JT (ed) On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, p 345

  • Tobler A, Nijhout HF (2010) Developmental constraints on the evolution of wing-body allometry in Manduca sexta. Evol Dev 12:592–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner TL, Stewart AD, Fields AT, Rice WR, Tarone AM (2011) Population-based resequencing of experimentally evolved populations reveals the genetic basis of body size variation in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet 7:e1001336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vea IM, Shingleton AW (2020) Network‐regulated organ allometry: the developmental regulation of morphological scaling. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol 10:e391

  • Wilkinson GS (1993) Artificial sexual selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Genet Res 62:213–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson G, Reillo P (1994) Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc Biol Sci 255:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was made possible through the assistance of undergraduate members of the Shingleton and Frankino labs, who reared and measured the flies used in the study. Additional financial support was provided by the University of Illinois at Chicago. WAF was supported by NSF IOS-1558098. AWS was supported by NSF IOS-1952385.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, 840 W Taylor St, Chicago, IL, 60607, USA

    Austin S. Wilcox, Isabelle M. Vea & Alexander W. Shingleton

  2. Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77204, USA

    W. Anthony Frankino

Authors
  1. Austin S. Wilcox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabelle M. Vea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Anthony Frankino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander W. Shingleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AWS and WAF designed and oversaw execution of the study; ASW and IMV oversaw the collection of the data; ASW, IMV, WAF and AWS contributed to the data analysis and in preparing the manuscript for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander W. Shingleton.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Associate editor: Rowan Barrett.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilcox, A.S., Vea, I.M., Frankino, W.A. et al. Genetic variation of morphological scaling in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-023-00603-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-023-00603-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links