This page has been archived and is no longer updated

 
February 17, 2014 | By:  Sedeer el-Showk
Aa Aa Aa

How Limbs Evolved From Fins

Around 400 million years ago a group of creatures made their way onto land to found the tetrapods, a clade encompassing all four-limbed vertebrates, from frogs to shrews to dinosaurs. Precisely how the transition from fins to limbs was accomplished is still unclear, but a team led by Denis Duboule has shed some light on the regulatory mechanisms involved. In a study published in PLoS Biology, they explored the connection between patterning in fins and limbs, investigating how each gets divided into regions during development.

Animal body plans are laid out by Hox genes, evolutionarily ancient genes which have diverged into different clusters as a result of genome duplications. The HoxA and HoxD clusters are essential for limb development in mammals, and their expression partitions the limb into two regions by the wrist/ankle: a proximal region closer to the body and a distal region which includes the digits. The spatial arrangement of Hox genes plays an important role in their regulation. For example, some Hox genes are arrayed within a cluster in the same order as the body segments. Duboule's team has recently shown that the expression of genes within the HoxD cluster is controlled by 3-dimensional interactions with non-coding DNA elements in the surrounding genomic regions. The cluster is divided into a 'bimodal' regulatory pattern, with genes at each end of the cluster interact with enhancers flanking the cluster on that side. The 5' and 3' genomic regions therefore form distinct regulatory landscapes, with enhancers in the 3' region promoting proximal gene expression and those in the 5' region promoting distal expression; genes located in the middle of the cluster are regulated by enchancers from both sides.

The first thing the team wanted to find out was whether the HoxA cluster was regulated in a similar way. If so, it would mean that this regulatory mechanism probably arose before the duplication at the root of the vertebrate clade that gave rise to HoxA & HoxD. The team found that the same spatial regulatory mechanism controlled HoxA expression, dividing its genes into two expression domains. In other words, this mechanism was present in the genome of the ancestor of modern fish and land animals. "This finding was a great surprise as we expected that this 'bimodal' DNA conformation was exactly what would make all the difference in the genetics for making limbs or making fins," said Joost Woltering, the post-doc who was lead author of the study, in a press release. Rather than providing a mechanism by which fins may have evolved, the spatial regulatory mechanism seems to be an ancestral characteristic of vertebrates.

So do fish have the regulatory elements to pattern a limb into an arm and digits? Yes and no. When the team engineered transgenic mice with the 5' or 3' genomic regions from zebrafsh, the HoxA and HoxD genes were expressed consistently in the arm, even if the transgenic genomic region activated genes in the distal part of the fin in fish. So even though fish have the same spatial regulatory mechanism to divide Hox expression into two regions, it turns out that both regions in the fin correspond to the proximal part of the tetrapod limb. Tetrapod digits evolved by transforming one of the two regulatory landscapes to create a novel domain, the distal limb region. Duboule called this "another surprise", saying that the findings "suggest that our digits evolved during the fin to limb transition by modernization of an already existing regulatory mechanism."

Tetrapod limbs turn out to have evolved by co-opting a spatial regulatory mechanism that dates back to our common ancestor with modern fish and adapting it to new ends. It's a remarkable evolutionary story, and one that raises interesting questions about how we define homology. Fish have the necessary components to make digits, which could then be considered a specialized fin component, but the modification of the regulatory landscape to create a new region for our digits argue against this view. Regardless, the next step will be understanding how these modifications came about. "By now we know a lot of genetic switches from the mouse that drive Hox expression in the digits. It's key to find out exactly how these processes work nowadays to understand what made digits appear and favor the colonization of the terrestrial environment," concluded Duboule.

References
Woltering J.M., et al. Conservation and Divergence of Regulatory Strategies at Hox Loci and the Origin of Tetrapod Digits. PLoS Biology 12(1): e1001773. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001773
Hoff M. A Footnote to the Evolution of Digits. PLoS Biology 12(1): e1001774. (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001774

Image Credit
The image is from Woltering et al (2014) and is distributed under a CC license.

6 Comments
Comments
February 26, 2014 | 09:56 PM
Posted By:  Sedeer el-Showk
Hi again,

Yes, evolution has a clear and specific meaning, but it has nothing to do with progress, though that's a popular misconception. The Oxford Dictionary defines evolution as "origination of species by development from earlier forms" and Merriam-Webster says "distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations". The word 'evolution' is _also_ used to mean progress, but that's a different meaning in a different context, just like 'work' has different meaning in common speech and physics. The biological process of evolution isn't about progress, just descent with modification. I already linked you to an earlier post of mine about that, and here's another explanation:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a3

The rest of your criticism seems to boil down to taking the position that limbs did not evolve from fins. In this post, I'm not at all trying to "lead [you] to the conclusion that limbs evolved from fins". The post addresses new research about how the genetic mechanisms patterning fins changed during the evolution of limbs; it takes the fact that tetrapod limbs evolved from fins as given. I don't try to justify it -- it's the starting point, right there in the first paragraph. As far as I know, that's an established scientific fact without any serious challenge. If you disagree with it, you can start with the summary on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod_evolution#From_fins_to_feet

or have a look at this paper from 2001 (and the references therein) for a more technical perspective:

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/brian.metscher/Wagner01_FinLimbHypothesis.pdf
February 24, 2014 | 12:58 PM
Posted By:  Vincenzo Antignani
Thank you once again for your comments, here my reply:

1) "You seem to think I was implying that limbs are somehow "better" or "more advanced" than fins"= well the term "evolve" has a clear meaning, and obviously that's where the emphasis is, starting from the title

2) "Newts and Axolotis"= you might be right, but these organisms escape the specific case of study right (which is mice_zebrafish)? and there is not enough data to conclude that mammal's limbs and lizard's limbs are the same (excluding the phylogenetic approach which I believe is too subjective). So, I do not see how bringing these two organisms in the discussion, can explain why rodents are not able to regenerate limbs or eyes.

Main criticism to your article: you start from a very specific and small finding (which is the alleged similarity between a couple of regulatory expression pathways) to draw a Grande Conclusion. In other words, I do not believe that the data you are presenting can really lead us to the conclusion that limbs evolved from fins, which is exactly what you state in the title.
February 21, 2014 | 07:07 PM
Posted By:  Sedeer el-Showk
The title isn't just a "shiny trap"; it accurately reflects the content of the post.

You seem to think I was implying that limbs are somehow "better" or "more advanced" than fins, which isn't at all what I mean when I say limbs evolved from fins. That simply means that limbs arose my modification of an ancestral structure which was a fin. As I've written elsewhere, evolution is not the same as progress:

http://inspiringscience.net/2012/02/15/five-common-biology-myths/#scala

I honestly don't know much about the question of regeneration, but I do know that some tetrapods do regenerate their limbs -- newts and axolotls are famous examples. I don't know whether it's true that all fins regenerate, but it's also not relevant. As I said above, the statement that "limbs evolved from fins" isn't any kind of value judgement; it simply means that limbs are fins which were modified for locomotion on land. That including the evolution of a mechanism to pattern them into arm/leg and digits, which is what this post addresses.
February 21, 2014 | 03:20 PM
Posted By:  Vincenzo Antignani
Dear Sedeer,

Thank you for your comments, and here my reply:
I often read from Scitable, and I enjoy it, however I get quite disappointed to see scientific commentaries written as creative writing" essays, where for example the titles are used as shiny traps to attract birds.

For the content: you are presenting your arguments about how limbs generated from fins, and I commented by saying that this is a controversial issue. For example, we all agree that limbs terminate with true finger/toe bones, and fin termine with bony rays which are anatomically and tissue wise very different from the first ones, but that is not my point. Fins are able to regenerate, fingers and toes obviously not. How can you explain the loss of such an advantageous trait? How can you ignore it and jump to the conclusion that limbs are the 2.0 version of fins?
Should we talk about "involution" more than evolution and title the article How Limbs Involved from Fins?


ps: by the way plants (but you could pick bacteria or insects as well) succeed better than the finger-ed organisms on terrestrial environments
February 19, 2014 | 11:59 AM
Posted By:  Sedeer el-Showk
Honestly speaking, headlines are always a challenge -- you've got roughly 8 words to summarize the article while grabbing a reader's attention.

What's so controversial about the topic? Yes, it's /complicated/, and I didn't summarize all of the research in this single blog post, but that's not what Accumulating Glitches is about. In general, the posts here cover advances made in 1-3 research articles, not overviews of an entire field or question.
February 19, 2014 | 01:19 AM
Posted By:  vincenzo antignani
Honestly speaking the title is quite pretentious, especially for such a controversial topic.

I would be glad to read studies dealing with comparative anatomy, organogenesis, tissue development, and mechanics of fins and limbs
Blogger Profiles
Recent Posts

« Prev Next »

Connect
Connect Send a message

Scitable by Nature Education Nature Education Home Learn More About Faculty Page Students Page Feedback



Blogs