Skip Navigation



Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access published online on June 21, 2008

Integrative and Comparative Biology, doi:10.1093/icb/icn060
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Holland, L. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Gilland, E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Amphioxus and the evolution of head segmentation

Linda Z. Holland1,*, Nicholas D. Holland* and Edwin Gilland{dagger}
*Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California–San Diego, La Jolla CA 92093-0202, USA; {dagger}Department of Anatomy, Howard University College of Medicine, 520 W Street NW, Washington, DC 20059, USA

Correspondence: 1E-mail: lzholland{at}ucsd.edu

Whether or not the vertebrate head is fundamentally segmented has been controversial for over 150 years. Beginning in the late 19th century, segmentalist theories proposed that the vertebrate head evolved from an amphioxus-like ancestor in which mesodermal somites extended the full length of the body with remnants of segmentation persisting as the mesodermal head cavities of sharks and lampreys. Antisegmentalists generally argued either that the vertebrate ancestors never had any mesodermal segmentation anteriorly or that they lost it before the origin of the vertebrates; in either case, the earliest vertebrates had an unsegmented head and the embryonic cranial mesoderm of vertebrates is at best pseudo-segmented, evolving independently of any pre-vertebrate segmental pattern. Recent morphologic studies have generally confirmed the accuracy of the major classical studies of head development in lampreys and sharks, yet disagree with their theoretical conclusions regarding the evolution of head segmentation. Studies of developmental genes in amphioxus and vertebrates, which have demonstrated conservation of the mechanisms of anterior–posterior patterning in the two groups, have shed new light on this controversy. Most pertinently, some homologs of genes expressed in the anterior amphioxus somites, which form as outpocketings of the gut, are also expressed in the walls of the head cavities of lampreys, which form similarly, and in their major derivatives (the velar muscles) as well as in the eye and jaw muscles of bony gnathostomes, which derive from unsegmented head mesoderm. These muscles share gene expression with the corresponding muscles of the shark, which derive from the walls of head cavities that form, not as outpocketings of the gut, but as secondary cavities within solid blocks of tissue. While molecular data that can be compared across all the relevant taxa remain limited, they are consistent with an evolutionary scenario in which the cranial paraxial mesoderm of the lamprey and shark evolved from the anterior somites of an amphioxus-like ancestor. Although, bony vertebrates have lost the mesodermal head segments present in the shark and lamprey, their remnants persist in the muscles of the eye and jaw.


From the symposium "Vertebrate Head Segmentation in a Modern Evo–Devo Context" presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, January 2–6, 2008, in San Antonio, Texas.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.