© 2003 by The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Genotype to Phenotype: Physiological Control of Trait Size and Scaling in Insects1
1 Division of Biological Sciences, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812-1002
 |
SYNOPSIS |
|---|
TOP
 SYNOPSIS INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND: INSECT...MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION...MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT...MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE...MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC...FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING:...References |
|---|
For almost a century, biologists have used trait scaling relationships (bi-variate scatter-plots of trait size versus body size) to characterize phenotypic variation within populations, and to compare animal shape across populations or species. Scaling relationships are a popular metric because they have long been thought to reflect underlying patterns of trait growth and development. However, the physiological mechanisms generating animal scaling are not well understood, and it is not yet clear how scaling relationships evolve. Here we review recent advances in developmental biology, genetics, and physiology as they pertain to the control of growth of adult body parts in insects. We summarize four mechanisms known to influence either the rate or the duration of cell proliferation within developing structures, and suggest how mutations in these mechanisms could affect the relative sizes of adult body parts. By reviewing what is known about these four processes, and illustrating how they may contribute to patterns of trait scaling, we reveal genetic mechanisms likely to be involved in the evolution of insect form.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOP
SYNOPSISINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND: INSECT...MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION...MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT...MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE...MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC...FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING:...References |
|---|
The concept of "allometry," or the scaling of body parts with body size, has a rich and distinguished history (Thompson, 1917
; Huxley, 1932; Paulian, 1935; Wilson, 1953, 1971; Cock, 1966; Gould, 1966). Large individuals almost always have larger structures than smaller individuals. However, the precise relationship between adult trait size and body size can vary markedly among populations and /or species (Fig. 1).
|
Numerous comparative studies and laboratory selection experiments make it clear that properties of scaling relationships can and do evolve (reviewed in Emlen and Nijhout, 2000
). In fact, evolutionary changes in the scaling of adult parts may underlie most of the dramatic morphological differences we observe among and within species. For example, changes in scaling contribute to variation in head sizes of ant soldier and worker castes (Wilson, 1953, 1971; Feener et al., 1988), head sizes of dimorphic bees (Danforth, 1991; Danforth and Neff, 1992; Kukuk, 1996; Danforth and Desjardins, 1999), eyestalk lengths in flies (Grimaldi and Fenster, 1989; Wilkinson and Dodson, 1997; Baker and Wilkinson, 2003), forceps lengths of earwigs (Simmons and Tomkins, 1996) and mandible and horn lengths of beetles (Huxley, 1931; Paulian, 1935; Otte and Stayman, 1979; Cook, 1986; Eberhard and Gutierrez, 1991; Kawano, 1995a, b; Emlen, 1996; Moczek, et al., 2002; Fig. 1).
Despite the fact that scaling relationships serve as important comparative tools in a wide variety of fields (e.g., systematics, Dodson, 1975; physiology, McMahon, 1973; Calder, 1996; Schmidt-Nielsen, 1984; and population biology, Alberch et al., 1979; Lande, 1979; LaBarbera, 1989; Klingenberg, 1996), little is known about the developmental mechanisms that generate scaling (i.e., the processes that coordinate final trait sizes with overall body size; Meyer et al., 1980; Nijhout and Wheeler, 1996; Galloni and Edgar, 1999; Stern and Emlen, 1999; Emlen and Nijhout, 2000; Miner et al., 2000). Even less is known about the changes in genetic mechanisms that underlie scaling relationship evolution (e.g., shifts in the slope or y-intercept [Fig. 2]; Nijhout and Wheeler, 1996; Emlen and Nijhout, 2000).
|
Recent advances in developmental biology, genetics, and physiology bring us much closer to understanding the genetic mechanisms that control growth of adult body parts. However, these studies of mechanism almost never extend their findings to the population-level phenomena of scaling, and it is not yet clear how genetic variation influencing trait growth would affect the properties of trait scaling relationships. We begin to make this connection here, by showing how genes might influence the relative sizes of morphological structures.
In this paper we review four developmental and physiological processes known to influence the growth and final size of adult body parts in insects. These are 1) genetic specification of the rate of cell proliferation within developing structures; 2) nutritional regulation of the rate of proliferation of structures; 3) endocrine regulation of the duration of proliferation of structures; and 4) polyphenic reprogramming of the rate or duration of proliferation of structures. All four of these mechanisms are likely to influence the properties of scaling relationships through their effects on trait growth. By reviewing what is known about these four processes, and suggesting how they contribute to patterns of trait scaling, we provide critical first insights to the genetic mechanisms by which insect scaling relationships may evolve. Our primary goal is to illustrate how mutations in specific genes might alter the properties of existing scaling relationships—leading to evolutionary changes in the slope, y-intercept, or shape of these relationships. We also use this information to identify likely candidates for the scaling mechanisms themselves. We focus on holometabolous (metamorphic) insects as a model system for understanding the evolution of scaling relationships. However, many of the mechanisms that we outline represent highly conserved developmental pathways. As a result, factors that affect scaling relationships in insects may also affect scaling across a wide variety of taxa.
|
BACKGROUND: INSECT METAMORPHOSIS, INSECT HORMONES, AND GROWTH OF IMAGINAL STRUCTURES |
|---|
|
TOP
SYNOPSISINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND: INSECT...MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION...MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT...MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE...MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC...FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING:...References |
|---|
Historical perspective
Insects display an extraordinary variety of morphologies, life histories and behavior; they differ just as widely in the specifics of their development. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify basic endocrine and cellular processes that are shared by a breadth of insect taxa (e.g., see reviews by Nijhout, 1994
; Riddiford, 1994, 1996; Gilbert et al., 1996; Truman and Riddiford, 1999, 2002). In the following sections we briefly describe the life cycle of metamorphic insects, and the endocrine events that (in most cases) coordinate the morphological transformation from larva to adult. We focus on the subsets of cells that will form the adult structures (the "imaginal discs"; see below), because proliferation of these cells determines the final sizes of wings, legs, antennae, mouthparts, compound eyes and genitalia in the adults.
It is important to recognize at the outset that not all imaginal discs develop in the same way, and for this review we adopt the historical perspective of Truman and Riddiford (1999, 2002; see also Svácha, 1992). According to this view, the ancestral pattern of insect imaginal disc development is one of late growth of these structures, with cells commencing proliferation near the end of the final larval instar (similar in timing to the growth of wings and genitalia in hemimetabolous insect taxa; Truman and Riddiford, 1999, 2002). This pattern of late trait development appears to occur in all of the basal holometabolous orders of insects (e.g., Megaloptera, Neuroptera, and Mecoptera), and in the more basal families of the Coleoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera. However, at least six times in the history of the holometabola, imaginal discs have evolved the capacity to commence proliferation earlier in the developmental period—in some cases, much earlier (Truman and Riddiford, 1999, 2002). The most notable examples of this include the imaginal discs in Drosophila (only the abdominal histoblast cells display the ancestral developmental pattern in these flies), and the wing imaginal discs of Lepidopterans. We first describe the ancestral pattern of disc development, and then discuss specific exceptions to this pattern as appropriate.
Insect metamorphosis
The life cycle of most metamorphic insects includes several sequential larval instars followed by a molt to a pupa, and then a final molt to the adult (Fig. 3A). Once animals have emerged as adults, they do not molt again, and their size and external morphology are fixed.
|
Larvae are behaviorally, morphologically and physiologically specialized for feeding and growing (Wake and Hall, 1999
; Truman and Riddiford, 2002). Most of the imaginal (i.e., adult) structures are not visible or functional in larvae (e.g., wings, compound eyes, genitalia, antennae), although it turns out that cells in these structures both commence, and often complete, their proliferative growth at this time. For most metamorphic insects, the last larval instar is the period when the final sizes of adult body parts are determined, and is therefore likely to be the period when the scaling of body parts to overall size occurs.
The final larval instar of metamorphic insects can be sub-divided into three physiologically and behaviorally discrete periods: the feeding period, the gut purge period, and the prepupal period (Fig. 3B). During the feeding period, animals feed and gain weight, and growth in overall body size occurs (Nijhout, 1994). Then, in response to a species-specific stimulus (e.g., attainment of a critical body size, as in the tobacco hornworm Manduca sexta; Nijhout and Williams, 1974; Nijhout, 1975, 1994; D'Amico et al., 2001), animals stop feeding and begin to empty their gut of all contents in preparation for metamorphosis (the gut purge period). This physiological transition is often associated with additional behavioral changes: larvae actively seek a pupation site ("wandering"), and/or form a protective pupal case.
After animals have completely purged their guts, the remaining days of the larval period are called the prepupal period. Larvae at this stage are relatively immobile, and many parts of the epidermis have detached from the outer larval cuticle (Hinton, 1958; Nijhout, 1994). Detached regions of epidermis grow rapidly at this time, and secrete new layers of cuticle. Because this new cuticle is formed inside the old larval cuticle, prepupal animals have two exoskeletons. Externally, they still resemble larvae, but they now have pupal cuticle folded up inside. This new pupal cuticle is soft, and remains folded until the animal molts, at which point it unfurls to take the pupal shape. Insect pupae have all of the major structures of the adult, and most of these structures have already reached their final dimensions.
Insect hormones
Both the molting process and the metamorphic transformation from larva to pupa are coordinated and regulated by hormones (reviewed in Nijhout, 1994; Riddiford, 1994, 1996; Gilbert et al., 1996). Two hormones in particular drive these fundamental processes: ecdysone and juvenile hormone (JH).
Ecdysone is a steroid hormone that exerts its effects by regulating downstream patterns of gene transcription (Lepesant and Richards, 1989; Andres et al., 1993; Cherbas and Cherbas, 1996). Cells are sensitive to ecdysone when they express receptors for this hormone, and variation in cell-or tissue-sensitivities can result from variation in the number or type of receptors expressed (Yao et al., 1992; Talbot et al., 1993; Fujiwara et al., 1995; Nijhout, 1994; Cherbas and Cherbas, 1996; Jindra et al., 1996; Riddiford, 1996; Champlin and Truman, 1998; Riddiford et al., 1999). Different tissues, and even the same tissues at different times, can have very different thresholds of sensitivity to ecdysone (Karim and Thummel, 1992; Emery et al., 1994; Riddiford et al., 1999). As a result, a gradually rising or falling ecdysone titer can sequentially trigger a series of time-and tissue-specific physiological events (Truman et al., 1974; Riddiford, 1985, 1994; Gilbert, 1989; Kremen, 1989; Nijhout, 1994; Champlin and Truman, 1998; Riddiford et al., 1999).
Juvenile hormone is a sesquiterpene secreted by the corpora allata, a pair of glands next to the insect brain (Bounhiol, 1938; Wigglesworth, 1940; Schooley and Baker, 1985; Tobe and Stay, 1985; Nijhout, 1994), and the level of JH present at times of ecdysone secretion can influence the specific pathways of gene transcription that are initiated (e.g., "larval" versus "pupal" genes; Hiruma et al., 1999; Riddiford, 1996; Riddiford et al., 1999). Circulating levels of JH are influenced by larval feeding rate, larval food quality, and by individual growth (Johansson, 1958; Wang, 1965; Asencot and Lensky, 1976; Lenz, 1976; Velthius, 1976; Dogra et al., 1977; Goewie, 1978; deWilde and Beetsma, 1982; Ono, 1982; Rembold, 1987; Rachinsky and Hartfelder, 1990; Browder et al., 2001; Tu and Tatar, 2003). Consequently, JH serves as an important intermediary between the external environment of insects and internal processes such as gene transcription, cell proliferation, behavior and physiology (Nijhout and Wheeler, 1982; Nijhout, 1994, 1999; Gilbert et al., 1996; Riddiford, 1994, 1996; Dingle and Winchell, 1997).
Although ecdysone alone stimulates and coordinates larval-to-larval molts, it is the interaction between ecdysone and JH that coordinates the metamorphic transformation from larva to pupa (reviewed in Bollenbacher, 1988; Gilbert, 1989; Berger et al., 1992; Nijhout, 1994; Riddiford, 1994, 1996; Gilbert et al., 1996; Truman and Riddiford, 1999, 2002). Near the end of each larval instar, there is a large pulse of ecdysone (the "molting pulse") that regulates the formation and expansion of new cuticle. When this molting pulse of ecdysone occurs, the level of JH also present at that same time determines the identity of the following molt. If JH is present above a threshold level, the molt is from larva to larva. However, if JH is absent (or below threshold) when the molting pulse of ecdysone occurs, then the metamorphic transformation is initiated, and the animal molts from a larva into a pupa (Nijhout and Williams, 1974; Safranek et al., 1980; Bollenbacher, 1988; Rountree and Bollenbacher, 1986; Gilbert, 1989; Nijhout, 1994; Sehnal et al., 1996).
During the final larval instar, JH levels typically drop by the end of the feeding period so that JH is absent by the time the molting pulse of ecdysone occurs (Nijhout and Williams, 1974; Safranek et al., 1980; Hammock, 1985; Rountree and Bollenbacher, 1986; Nijhout, 1994; Fig. 3B). The first pulse of ecdysone that rises in the absence of a background of JH initiates the behavioral and physiological changes associated with metamorphosis (i.e., the switch from feeding to gut purge; Dominick and Truman, 1985; Nijhout, 1994; Riddiford, 1994), and changes the identity of the subsequent instar from larva to pupa (Truman et al., 1974; Riddiford, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1985; Riddiford and Kiely, 1981; Kremen and Nijhout, 1998; Riddiford and Hiruma, 1998; Nijhout, 1994; Champlin and Truman, 1998). Once this transition has been initiated (red arrow in Fig. 3), metamorphosis is unstoppable and irreversible, and the rigid downstream sequence of physiological events is called the "metamorphic endocrine cascade" (reviewed in Nijhout, 1994; Gilbert et al., 1996). With this as a backdrop, we can now examine when and how adult body parts form.
Growth of imaginal discs
The clusters of cells that will form the imaginal structures (here called "imaginal discs," but see Svá cha (1992) and Truman and Riddiford (2002) for more precise definitions) behave as remarkably autonomous units. For example, the cells that will form the adult left foreleg are physically separated from cells that will form the left forewing, the left midleg, or the right foreleg. In general, these clusters of imaginal cells remain dormant for most of the larval period, and then undergo rapid proliferation during the gut purge and prepupal periods (Williams, 1980; Fristrom and Fristrom, 1993; Milán et al., 1996; Nijhout and Wheeler, 1996; Truman and Riddiford, 1999, 2002; blue arrow in Fig. 3A). Since these developing structures are trapped inside the larval cuticle, they either invaginate into the larval body cavity, or they fold in on themselves as they grow, forming dense rings of epidermis (Gehring and Nothiger, 1973; Oberlander, 1985; Svá cha, 1992; Kremen and Nijhout, 1998; Emlen and Nijhout, 1999; Miura and Matsumoto, 2000). After a period of proliferation, imaginal discs begin a process of cellular differentiation that involves changes in cell shape and unfolding of the new structure (e.g., Fristrom et al., 1977; Fristrom and Fristrom, 1993). The unfolding of structures as the animal molts results in the sudden transformation from larval to pupal body form (e.g., Fig. 6C).
|
Three properties of imaginal discs are central to discussions of genetic mechanisms that influence the relative sizes of body parts. First, growth of imaginal discs occurs primarily by cell proliferation (Meyer et al., 1980
; Raff, 1996; Conlon and Raff, 1999; Weinkove and Leevers, 2000; Johnston and Gallant, 2002). Changes in cell size may also influence trait sizes (Conlon and Raff, 1999; Montagne et al., 1999; Verdu et al., 1999; Weinkove et al., 1999; Hodin and Riddiford, 2000); however, the majority of animal growth is thought to arise from cell proliferation, and we focus on this mechanism here (e.g., a typical Drosophila wing disc grows from 50 to 50,000 cells in four days; Johnston and Gallant, 2002). Second, imaginal discs need not grow at the same time as the rest of the animal. Cell proliferation in the imaginal discs of many insects does not begin until around the time larvae stop feeding, and thus occurs after most growth in overall body size has ceased. Third, each of the different imaginal discs behaves as a relatively autonomous developmental unit. What factors determine the final sizes of adult body parts? Ultimately, the resulting dimensions of morphological structures will depend on how fast the cells in each imaginal disc proliferate (growth rate), and how long imaginal cell proliferation continues (growth duration). Each of the mechanisms described below influences the final sizes of adult body parts by determining either the rate or the duration of imaginal disc growth. Mechanism 1 operates by regulating the relative amounts of growth of territories, or domains, within each developing imaginal disc (specifying the proportions of different regions within a structure determines, to a large extent, the dimensions of the total structure). Mechanisms 2 and 3 regulate overall levels of proliferation of entire imaginal discs, by influencing the rate of protein synthesis in imaginal disc cells (Mechanism 2), or by specifying the duration of the physiological period permissive to imaginal cell proliferation (Mechanism 3). Our goal in reviewing these mechanisms is to highlight how genetic variation for aspects of development can influence animal morphology. Mutations in these mechanisms have the potential to affect the relative amount of growth of specific structures. As such, they may influence the relationship between trait size and body size, and they are of direct relevance to evolutionary biologists interested in the evolution of animal form.
|
MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION OF GROWTH RATE |
|---|
|
TOP
SYNOPSISINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND: INSECT...MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION...MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT...MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE...MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC...FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING:...References |
|---|
As early as 1922, Kopec demonstrated that developing imaginal discs surgically excised from their natural physiological location retained their identity (and grew to a roughly appropriate final size) even when transplanted to another position in another individual (Kopec, 1922
; see also Williams, 1961; Pohley, 1965; Garcia-Bellido, 1965). In fact, imaginal discs contain the genetic regulatory machinery needed to form an entire adult structure (reviewed in Cohen, 1993; Serrano and O'Farrell, 1997; Garcia-Bellido and Garcia-Bellido, 1998; Johnston and Gallant, 2002). During larval development, the epithelial cells within each of the imaginal discs become subdivided by a hierarchical sequence of spatially-explicit signals that diffuse from cell to cell (two important signaling molecules are Wingless [Wg] and Decapentaplegic [Dpp]; Cohen, 1993; Serrano and O'Farrell, 1997). These signals have been called "morphogens" (sensu Turing, 1952) because they direct the development of cells as they diffuse through the tissue (Lawrence and Struhl, 1996; Day and Lawrence, 2000). Partially overlapping gradients of morphogens specify unique domains within the disc epithelium, and cells at the intersections of these domains take active roles in coordinating both patterning and growth of the structure. Box 1 illustrates part of this process for the Drosophila leg.
|
Importantly, interactions between positional signals stimulate and coordinate cell proliferation locally within the disc (Peifer et al., 1991
; Campbell et al., 1993; Struhl and Basler, 1993; Basler and Struhl, 1994; Diaz-Benjumea et al., 1994; Irvine and Wieschaus, 1994; Wilder and Perrimon, 1995; Zecca et al., 1995; Grimm and Pflugfelder, 1996; Johnston and Schubiger, 1996; Serrano and O'Farrell, 1997; Johnston and Gallant, 2002). For example, if a piece of a disc is surgically removed, cells at the wound edge no longer receive positional signals from their neighbors, and when these cells contact the opposite edge of the wound, the signals between them are inappropriate. This mismatch of cell signals stimulates proliferation in the wound region, and proliferation continues until the diffused pattern of signals is again complete (e.g., Gibson and Schubiger, 1999). Thus the pattern itself dictates, to some extent, the proportions and final size of the structure.
Drosophila imaginal discs are important models for understanding the influence of genetic patterning networks on local proliferation within discs (reviewed in Cohen, 1993; Serrano and O'Farrell, 1997; Day and Lawrence, 2000; Johnston and Gallant, 2002), and this system provides evidence for several mechanisms by which the relative sizes of discs could evolve. For example, increased (or decreased) levels of Wg or Dpp expression by focal cells alters rates of cell proliferation within discs, and this can affect the final sizes of the corresponding adult structures (Nellen et al., 1996; Neumann and Cohen, 1996; Serrano and O'Farrell, 1997; Niwa et al., 2000; Adachi-Yamada and O'Connor, 2002; Martín-Castellanos and Edgar, 2002). Mutations in upstream factors that regulate Wg or Dpp activity (e.g., Notch, Go et al., 1998; Ultrabithorax, Stern, 2003a) also affect rates of cell proliferation within discs, as do mutations in receptors for Dpp (Johnston and Gallant, 2002), and mutations in the downstream signaling pathways regulated by Wg and Dpp (e.g., Peifer et al., 1991; Johnson et al., 1995; Burke and Basler, 1996; Rauskolb and Irvine, 1999; Keisman and Baker, 2001; Keisman et al., 2001; Moreno et al., 2002). Thus, a variety of genetic elements interact to specify how spatial patterning is laid down within developing imaginal structures, and mutations in the involved gene-transcription pathways affect the relative amounts of proliferation of these structures. In fact, by specifying the shape and relative sizes of domains within imaginal discs, patterning networks may determine most of the overall dimensions (i.e., size) of each imaginal structure (e.g., Day and Lawrence, 2000).
We summarize the genetic patterning network for Drosophila leg discs in Figure 4. This patterning network appears largely conserved between the different Drosophila imaginal discs (e.g., wings: Cohen, 1993; Irvine and Wieschaus, 1994; Serrano and O'Farrell, 1997; antennae: Cummins et al., 2003; genitalia: Keisman and Baker, 2001; Keisman et al., 2001), and similar patterning networks direct appendage development in other insects (e.g., butterflies: Weatherbee et al., 1999; beetles: Beermann et al., 2001; ants: Abouheif and Wray, 2002; crickets: Niwa et al., 2000; grasshoppers: Jockusch et al., 2000), arthropods (e.g., spiders: Abzhanov and Kaufman, 2000), and vertebrates (Vogel et al., 1995; Pueyo et al., 2000; Campbell, 2002). In all of these examples, the basic elements of the patterning process are conserved, but details of the interactions vary. This suggests that evolutionary modifications in the shapes and sizes of body parts may arise in part from subtle alterations in these genetic patterning networks (e.g., Niwa et al., 2000; Keisman et al., 2001; Cummins et al., 2003; Stern, 2003a).
|
|
MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT REGULATION OF GROWTH RATE |
|---|
|
TOP
SYNOPSISINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND: INSECT...MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION...MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT...MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE...MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC...FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING:...References |
|---|
Although morphogen signals and genetic patterning networks control local proliferation of different regions within each imaginal disc, additional, external factors control overall levels of proliferation of entire discs. These additional signals operate globally within the insect, and may influence the proliferation of all of the imaginal discs. Differences among discs in how they respond to these global signals (e.g., through tissue-specific receptor activity) can lead to variation in the relative sizes of body parts, and may underlie the evolution of trait scaling relationships, and of animal proportions in general.
One of the most important "global" signaling mechanisms in metazoans is the insulin pathway. Cell proliferation requires high levels of protein synthesis, and in both vertebrates and insects this process is regulated by the insulin pathway (Edgar, 1999; Weinkove and Leevers, 2000; Ikeya et al., 2002; Johnston and Gallant, 2002; Nijhout and Grunert, 2003). Insulin, when bound to its receptor, activates an evolutionarily conserved signal transduction cascade that controls the activity of the protein translation machinery (Fig. 5).
|
In vertebrates, insulin cooperates with insulin-like growth factors to bind to its receptor (reviewed in Johnston and Gallant, 2002
). A similar situation occurs in insects (Kawamura et al., 1999; Bryant, 2001; Nijhout and Grunert, 2003; Nijhout, 2003). This signaling mechanism has been best studied in Drosophila, where there are now seven identified insulin proteins: dILPs 1–7 (Drosophila 
nsulin-
ike 
roteins; Ikeya et al., 2002), and several types of growth factors (Britton and Edgar, 1998; Kawamura et al., 1999; Bryant, 2001; [Recently, both insulin, and growth factors have also been identified in the Lepidoptera: Nijhout and Grunert, 2003; Nijhout, 2003]). Three of the Drosophila dILP genes are expressed by insulin-producing neurosecretory cells in the brain during larval development (Rulifson et al., 2002), and these insulin proteins are secreted into the hemolymph where they act as circulating signals accessible to all developing tissues (Rulifson et al., 2002).
Importantly, levels of both insulin and growth factors are sensitive to larval nutrition (Kawamura et al., 1999; Bryant, 2001; Britton et al., 2002; Ikeya et al., 2002; Nijhout and Grunert, 2003). Expression of at least two of the dILPs is altered by perturbations in larval diet (flies starved for 24 hours show reduced levels of expression of dILP 3 and dILP 5; Ikeya et al., 2002), and production of growth factors responds to levels of larval nutrition (Kawamura et al., 1999; Bryant, 2001; Nijhout and Grunert, 2003). Levels of insulin and growth factors both affect overall rates of proliferative growth (e.g., Kawamura et al., 1999; Bryant, 2001), and mutations in any of the components in this pathway mimic the effects of starvation—i.e., they generate miniature, but normally proportioned animals (Edgar, 1999; Weinkove and Leevers, 2000; Brogiolo et al., 2001; Tatar et al., 2001; Britton et al., 2002; Ikeya et al., 2002; Johnston and Gallant, 2002). Combined, these results implicate the insulin-signaling pathway as an important centralized mechanism coordinating growth in insects. In fact, the insulin pathway may be the primary mechanism by which insect growth is regulated in response to the external influence of larval nutrition (Edgar, 1999; Masumura et al., 2000; Bryant, 2001; Ikeya et al., 2002; Johnston and Gallant, 2002; Nijhout and Grunert, 2003; Stern, 2003b). For this reason, the insulin pathway is, at present, one of the most promising candidates for the elusive underlying mechanism of scaling itself (i.e., for the basic process that coordinates proportional growth of body parts with nutrition-induced among-individual variation in overall body size). We return to this possibility at the end of this paper.
Although the insulin pathway clearly regulates overall growth of animals, several recent studies suggest that it may regulate disc-specific growth rates as well. Insulin receptors are expressed in imaginal discs (Chen et al., 1996; Brogiolo et al., 2001; Bryant, 2001), and discs produce their own growth factors that cooperate with insulin to stimulate local proliferation (Kawamura et al., 1999; Bryant, 2001). Manipulations of levels of either insulin or growth factors directly affects the rates of imaginal cell proliferation (Kawamura et al., 1999; Bryant, 2001; Zurovec et al., 2002; Nijhout and Grunert, 2003), and local over-expression of either the insulin receptor, or of one of the downstream kinases (e.g., PIP3K), leads to enlargement of specific imaginal structures (Leevers et al., 1996; Huang et al., 1999; Weinkove et al., 1999). We illustrate components of the insulin pathway with known disc-specific effects on proliferation in Figure 5. Because mutations in the insulin pathway have the potential to affect the relative sizes of specific adult structures, they also constitute plausible physiological bases for evolutionary modifications to animal form.
|
MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE REGULATION OF GROWTH DURATION |
|---|
|
TOP
SYNOPSISINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND: INSECT...MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION...MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT...MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE...MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC...FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING:...References |
|---|
The developmental hormones JH and ecdysone also act as global signals that can influence proliferation in imaginal discs. As already discussed, JH and ecdysone coordinate insect molting and metamorphosis. In many insects, they also coordinate the timing of proliferation in imaginal disc cells (Fig. 6). The wings and genitalia of hemimetabolous insects, and the imaginal discs of many holometabolous insects delay proliferation until the end of the larval period. This delayed onset of proliferation is mediated by hormones, and in particular, by an inhibitory effect of JH.4 During early larval instars, and during the feeding period of the final larval instar, high levels of circulating JH combine with low levels of ecdysone to inhibit proliferation of imaginal cells (Wyss, 1976
; Smagghe and Degheele, 1994; Kremen and Nijhout, 1998; Champlin and Truman, 1998; Truman and Riddiford, 1999, 2002; Miner et al., 2000; Oberlander et al., 2000).
When JH levels drop at end of the larval feeding period (Figs. 3B, 6), proliferation of imaginal cells begins (Svácha, 1992; Smagghe and Degheele, 1994; Monsma and Booker, 1996; Champlin and Truman, 1998; Truman and Riddiford, 1999). Imaginal tissues have genetically specified thresholds of sensitivity to JH (Fukuda, 1952; Milner and Dübendorfer, 1982; Ohtaki et al., 1986; Peel and Milner, 1992; red line in Fig. 6A), and when levels drop beneath this threshold, cell proliferation commences. This burst of proliferation continues through the gut purge period, while JH titers remain low.
At the onset of the prepupal period a new pulse of JH occurs simultaneously with very high levels of ecdysone (Figs. 3B, 6). This combination of hormones also stimulates proliferation of imaginal cells (Wyss, 1976; Kremen and Nijhout, 1998; Oberlander et al., 1998), and these cells continue to proliferate as long as this latter pulse of JH is above threshold. Near the end of the prepupal period, JH titers drop and cells are exposed to high levels of ecdysone in the absence of JH. This critical event triggers the end of imaginal cell proliferation, and initiates the metamorphic process of disc differentiation (Chihara et al., 1972; Oberlander and Tomblin, 1972; Chihara and Fristrom, 1973; Wyss, 1976; Meyer et al., 1980; Milner and Dübendorfer, 1982; Peel and Milner, 1992; Smagghe and Degheele, 1994; Champlin and Truman, 1998; Cottam and Milner, 1998; Oberlander et al., 1998; Auzoux-Bordenave et al., 2002).
Consequently, both the onset and the termination of disc growth are determined by the joint action of ecdysone and juvenile hormone. These endocrine events define a window of proliferation for imaginal structures at the end of the final larval instar. For each imaginal disc, the duration of the growth period, and hence the final size of the adult structure, will depend on circulating levels of JH and ecdysone, and on imaginal disc-specific thresholds of sensitivity to these hormones. This latter factor is particularly relevant here, because genetically mediated hormone thresholds may provide another important mechanism for evolution of animal shape.
Genetic properties intrinsic to the imaginal discs determine their thresholds of sensitivity to JH and ecdysone, and mutations affecting these thresholds can contribute to evolutionary changes in the relative sizes of specific adult structures. For example, separate discs within a single animal often have very different hormone thresholds (Fukuda, 1952; Milner and Dübendorfer, 1982; Ohtaki et al., 1986; Peel and Milner, 1992; Kremen and Nijhout, 1998), and this can cause them to differ in the relative durations of their period of proliferation, and in their respective final sizes. In the silkworm Bombyx mori, wing discs begin proliferating before leg discs, and both of these begin before the mandibles (Fukuda, 1952; Ohtaki et al., 1986).
Particularly extreme examples include the wing discs of Lepidoptera, and the wing and leg discs of Drosophila, which begin proliferating very early in the larval period (Svácha, 1992; Stern and Emlen, 1999; Truman and Riddiford, 1999, 2002). These imaginal discs have extraordinarily high thresholds of sensitivity to JH (Chihara et al., 1972; Chihara and Fristrom, 1973; Reddy et al., 1980; Cottam and Milner, 1998; Kremen and Nijhout, 1998; Miner et al., 2000), and insensitivity to JH permits them to commence growth early in the larval period (while JH levels are still quite high; Truman and Riddiford, 1999, 2002). Early onset of proliferation may be the mechanism by which these species evolved unusually large trait sizes (in the case of butterfly wings), or unusually rapid larval development (in the case of Drosophila), and in both cases, early proliferation probably evolved through shifts in the relative sensitivities of these imaginal discs to circulating levels of JH (Truman and Riddiford, 1999, 2002).
Each of the above examples involves disc-specific variation in sensitivity to JH. However, the period of imaginal disc growth can also be altered by changes in cell sensitivity to ecdysone. For example, eye discs of the tobacco hornworm moth, Manduca sexta, have an extended duration of proliferation that results from a very high threshold of sensitivity to ecdysone. In this case, the prepupal ecdysone pulse is not sufficient to terminate eye disc proliferation, even though JH levels drop. Thus, eye disc cells continue to proliferate until an even larger ecdysone pulse occurs during the middle of the pupal period (Monsma and Booker, 1996; Champlin and Truman, 1998).
Although it is now clear that both tissues within an individual, and individuals within populations (e.g., Dingle and Winchell, 1997; Ayoade et al., 1999; D'Amico et al., 2001; Bertuso et al., 2002; Moczek and Nijhout, 2002) differ genetically for hormone thresholds, we still know very little about how changes in cell sensitivity to hormone levels arise. Mutations affecting levels of hormone receptor expression, or binding affinities of receptors to hormone, could all affect the concentrations of circulating hormone needed to elicit a physiological response, and for this reason we suggest that they constitute likely candidate mechanisms.
One recently characterized Drosophila gene appears especially promising: headcase (hdc). Weaver and White (1995) showed that hdc is expressed specifically in imaginal cells, and that its pattern of expression exactly coincides with the period of imaginal cell proliferation. Mutations leading to loss of hdc function prevented imaginal cells from differentiating during the prepupal period (Weaver and White, 1995), and the authors suggest that this gene may be involved in hormone responsiveness during metamorphosis. Clearly, more studies will be needed to directly link patterns of gene expression within imaginal discs with cellular sensitivities to circulating hormones. Regardless of how they arise, genetic changes in the sensitivity of imaginal cells to either JH or ecdysone have the potential to alter the relative sizes of specific structures because they affect the duration of imaginal cell proliferation. As such, they constitute additional physiological bases for evolutionary modifications in animal form.
|
MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC REPROGRAMMING OF TRAIT GROWTH |
|---|
|
TOP
SYNOPSISINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND: INSECT...MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION...MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT...MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE...MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC...FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING:...References |
|---|
Animal populations often exhibit more than one scaling relationship for the same trait. The most common example of this involves sexual dimorphism, where expression of a structure in males may differ strikingly from that of females (e.g., mandibles in Lucanid beetles may be enlarged into exaggerated weapons in males, but not in females; Huxley, 1931
; Otte and Stayman, 1979). Sexually dimorphic taxa are promising systems for explorations of the genetic control of scaling, because comparing gene expression in the imaginal discs of males and females has the potential to reveal mechanisms underlying evolutionary changes in trait scaling relationships, and in animal morphology.
In still other insect species, patterns of trait growth are altered facultatively, depending on the conditions individuals encounter as larvae. These ‘reprogramming’ events are typically mediated by hormones, and can involve local changes in patterns of gene expression that redirect the relative amounts of proliferation of structures (e.g., Wheeler, 1991; Evans and Wheeler, 1999; Miura et al., 1999; Scharf et al., 2003). Reprogramming can result in large and small individuals within a population—even within the same sex—having very different trait scaling relationships, often separated abruptly by a critical threshold body size. These systems may be the most promising of all, because it is possible to induce animals with similar genotypes (e.g., siblings) to produce divergent morphologies by manipulating environmental conditions in the laboratory. For example, in the male-dimorphic beetle Onthophagus taurus, males encountering favorable nutritional conditions grow larger than a threshold body size, and horn lengths in large males scale according to one relationship. Males encountering sub-optimal nutritional conditions do not reach this body size, and horn lengths in small males scale according to a different relationship (Emlen and Nijhout, 1999, 2001; Fig. 7).
|
Natural populations of this beetle include a mixture of both large and small individuals, and these populations are characterized by sigmoid, or broken scaling relationships between horn length and body size (Hunt and Simmons, 1997
; Emlen and Nijhout, 1999; Moczek and Emlen, 1999; Fig. 8D). Similar scaling-relationship polyphenisms occur in other male dimorphic beetles (Huxley, 1931; Paulian, 1935; Eberhard, 1982; Cook, 1986; Eberhard and Gutierrez, 1991; Rasmussen, 1994; Kawano, 1995a, b; Emlen, 2000), male dimorphic bees (e.g., Kukuk and Schwartz, 1987; Danforth, 1991; Hartfelder and Engels, 1992; Kukuk, 1996; Danforth and Desjardins, 1999), earwigs (Tomkins and Simmons, 1996), and in castes of aphids (Stern et al., 1996), bees (Rachinsky and Hartfelder, 1990; Hartfelder et al., 2000) and ants (Wilson, 1953, 1971; Wheeler and Nijhout, 1983; Feener et al., 1988; Wheeler, 1991; Diniz-Filho et al., 1994; Ward, 1997).
|
Unfortunately, little is known about how cellular reprogramming is achieved. These reprogramming events generally occur prior to the period of imaginal cell proliferation (e.g., Wheeler and Nijhout, 1981
, 1983; Rachinsky and Hartfelder, 1990; Emlen and Nijhout, 2001), are triggered by levels of juvenile hormone (e.g., Wheeler and Nijhout, 1981, 1983), or by interactions between juvenile hormone and ecdysone (Rachinsky and Hartfelder, 1990; Emlen and Nijhout, 1999, 2001; Hartfelder et al., 2000), and they involve genetically-mediated thresholds of sensitivity to these hormones (Emlen, 1996; Moczek and Nijhout, 2002; Moczek et al., 2002). Reprogramming may at first appear similar to Mechanism 3 (it involves the same hormones, and similar genetic thresholds of sensitivity to these hormones). However, several distinctions are worth noting. First, endocrine regulation of the duration of proliferation (Mechanism 3) affects all individuals in most, if not all, metamorphic insect species. In contrast, only a subset of these taxa incorporate the additional endocrine mechanism of tissue reprogramming, and in these taxa, only a subset of individuals (e.g., those smaller than a threshold size) are affected. Second, reprogramming events occur at a different time than Mechanism 3, and although they may alter parameters relevant to Mechanism 3 (e.g., they may shift thresholds of sensitivity to JH or ecdysone), they are not limited to this. In principle, reprogramming events could affect trait growth by altering the expression of genes from any of the above (or other) mechanisms.
Regardless of how it arises, polyphenic reprogramming of disc growth can profoundly affect the shape of trait scaling relationships (reviewed in Nijhout and Wheeler, 1982, 1996; Wheeler, 1991; Nijhout, 1999; Emlen and Nijhout, 2000). Because only a subset of animals are reprogrammed, natural populations contain a mixture of "wild type" and "reprogrammed" individuals, and these populations often have complex (e.g., sigmoid or discontinuous) patterns of trait scaling (e.g., Fig. 8). Interestingly, the exact properties of trait scaling that are altered by these reprogramming events can vary: depending on the species, complex scaling relationships can involve size-specific changes in slope, y-intercept, or both, suggesting that multiple mechanisms may be affected.
|
FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING: WHERE ARE WE NOW? |
|---|
|
TOP
SYNOPSISINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND: INSECT...MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION...MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT...MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE...MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC...FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING:...References |
|---|
Scaling is a population-level phenomenon. Scaling relationships characterize trait development as it is expressed in individuals across a range of body sizes. These relationships provide meaningful descriptions of variation within natural populations, which is the raw material for natural and sexual selection. They also provide informative metrics for comparing patterns of trait expression among populations or species. Consequently, scaling relationships are a promising interface between developmental and evolutionary biology.
Remarkably, the developmental processes that actually generate scaling have hardly been explored, and no scaling mechanism has yet been identified for any insect. Describing a scaling relationship requires measurements of trait and body sizes for large samples of individuals (e.g., Figs. 1, 8), and empirically assessing the effect of a mutation on trait scaling requires these measures for both mutant and wild-type populations. Unfortunately, none of the studies exploring mutational effects on trait size looked at the larger question of trait scaling. This may reflect differences in the methodologies of developmental and population biologists; it may reflect a lack of interest in the question by developmental biologists. Regardless, an understanding of the mechanism(s) of scaling is necessary before genetic studies of trait growth can be effectively integrated with population studies of morphological evolution. We end this review by proposing two candidate mechanisms for scaling in insects.
Scaling results from mechanisms that coordinate the relative amount of growth of imaginal discs with the final body size attained by each individual (Fig. 9). In insects, natural variation in body size is influenced by variation in larval nutrition: individuals reared under favorable nutritive conditions mature at larger body sizes than genetically similar individuals reared under poor, or limiting nutritive conditions (e.g., Wigglesworth, 1953; Chapman, 1982; Blanckenhorn, 1991; Hunt and Simmons, 1997; Iguchi, 1998; Imasheva et al., 1999; Emlen and Nijhout, 2000; Tu and Tatar, 2003). Yet, despite this pervasive source of environmental variation, adult trait sizes scale closely with body size in natural populations (reviewed in Stern and Emlen, 1999; Emlen and Nijhout, 2000).
|
Developmental mechanisms of scaling must be sensitive to variation in larval nutrition, and they must modify the growth of imaginal discs so that final trait sizes are appropriate for the nutritional conditions encountered, and the overall body sizes attained. Mechanisms 2 and 3 meet these criteria: both involve circulating signals that are extrinsic to the discs themselves (insulin and JH, respectively), the levels of these signals are sensitive to larval nutrition, and these signals affect the relative amounts of imaginal disc growth. Consequently, both insulin and endocrine pathways provide viable candidate mechanisms for basic patterns of trait scaling in insects, and these may operate alone or in combination to specify body size-dependent amounts of imaginal disc growth (Fig. 10).
|
In summary, although we are much closer to an understanding of physiological processes regulating the amount of growth of individual structures, we cannot yet extrapolate this information to population patterns of scaling, or to comparative studies of morphological evolution. Direct tests of these and other mechanisms will be needed before a more comprehensive understanding of the evolution of scaling is possible. Precise links between genetic variation in mechanisms regulating trait growth, and population patterns of trait scaling, are complex, and are likely to depend on the specific mechanisms generating scaling. Future studies will benefit if they integrate the approaches of both developmental and population biology. For example, genetic studies that perturb any of the four mechanisms reviewed here and also measure trait scaling relationships, will be able to bring laboratory studies of development into the realm of population biology and evolution. Only then will it be possible to directly link genetic variation in patterns of trait growth with one of the oldest and most widespread metrics of evolutionary biology: allometry.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank John Hatle for organizing this symposium, K. Bright, L. D'Amico, J. Hodin and two anonymous reviewers for comments on this manuscript, J. Hunt for sharing unpublished data, L. D'Amico, J. Marcus, H. F. Nijhout and D. L. Stern for invaluable discussions of these topics, and the National Science Foundation for funding (IBN-0092873).
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 From the Symposium Physiology Underlying Phenotypic Plasticity and Polyphenisms presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, 4–8 January 2003, at Toronto, Canada.
2 E-mail: doug.emlen{at}mso.unt.edu
3 Current address: Evolutionary Biology, Leiden University, Kaiserstraat 63, 2311 GP Leiden, The Netherlands
4 This mechanism has been largely overlooked as a regulator of trait growth, probably because the majority of studies of imaginal disc development have focused on the discs of Drosophila, and on the wing discs of Lepidoptera, and these all are unusually insensitive to JH. However, even these discs are sensitive to interactions between JH and ecdysone during the prepupal period, and their proliferation is inhibited by JH during the larval feeding period if the concentrations are high enough (see text for references).
|
References |
|---|
|
TOP
SYNOPSISINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND: INSECT...MECHANISM 1: GENETIC REGULATION...MECHANISM 2: INSULIN-DEPENDENT...MECHANISM 3: ENDOCRINE...MECHANISM 4: POLYPHENIC...FROM PROLIFERATION TO SCALING:...References |
|---|
Abouheif, E., and G. A. Wray. 2002. Evolution of the gene network underlying wing polyphenism in ants. Science, 297:249-252.
Abu-Shaar, M., and R. S. Mann. 1998. Generation of multiple antagonistic domains along the proximodistal axis during Drosophila leg development. Development, 125:3821-3830.[Abstract]
Abzhanov, A., and T. C. Kaufman. 2000. Homologs of Drosophila appendage genes in the patterning of arthropod limbs. Dev. Biol, 227:673-689.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Adachi-Yamada, T., and M. B. O'Connor. 2002. Morphogenetic apoptosis: A mechanisms for correcting discontinuities in morphogen gradients. Dev. Biol, 251:74-90.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Alberch, P., S. J. Gould, G. F. Oster, and D. B. Wake. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 5:296-317.[Abstract]
Andres, A. J., J. C. Fletcher, F. D. Karim, and C. S. Thummel. 1993. Molecular analysis of the initiation of metamorphosis: A comparative study of Drosophila ecdysteroid-regulated transcription. Dev. Biol, 160:388-404.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Asencot, M., and Y. Lensky. 1976. The effect of sugars and juvenile hormone on the differentiation of the female honeybee larvae (Apis melifera L.) to queens. Life Sci, 18:693-700.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Auzoux-Bordenave, S., P.-J. Hatt, and P. Porcheron. 2002. Anti-proliferative effect of 20-hydroxyecdysone in a lepidopteran cell line. Insect Biochemistry and Mol. Biol, 32:217-223.[CrossRef]
Ayoade, O., S. Morooka, and S. Tojo. 1999. Enhancement of short wing formation and ovarian growth in the genetically defined macropterous strain of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. J. Insect Phys, 45:93-100.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Baker, R. H., and G. S. Wilkinson. 2003. Phylogenetic analysis of correlation structure in stalk-eyed flies (Diasemopsis, Diopsidae). Evolution, 57:87-103.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Basler, K., and G. Struhl. 1994. Compartment boundaries and the control of Drosophila limb pattern by Hedgehog protein. Nature, 368:208-214.[CrossRef][Medline]
Beermann, A., D. G. Jay, R. W. Beeman, M. Hülskamp, D. Tautz, and G. Jürgens. 2001. The Short antennae gene of Tribolium is required for limb development and encodes the orthologue of the Drosophila Distal-less protein. Development, 128:287-297.[Abstract]
Berger, E. M., K. Goudie, L. Klieger, and R. DeCato. 1992. The juvenile hormone analogue, methoprene, inhibits ecdysterone induction of small heat shock protein gene expression. Dev. Biol, 151:410-418.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bertuso, A. G., S. Morooka, and S. Tojo. 2002. Sensitive periods for wing development and precocioous metamoprphosis after precocene treatment of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. J. Insect Phys, 48:221-229.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Bishop, S. A., T. Klein, A. Martinez-Arias, and J. P. Couso. 1999. Composite signalling from Serrate and Delta establishes leg segments in Drosophila through Notch. Development, 126:2993-3003.[Abstract]
Blanckenhorn, W. U. 1991. Life-history differences in adjacent water strider populations: Phenotypic plasticity or heritable responses to stream temperature? Evolution, 45:1520-1525.[CrossRef]
Bollenbacher, W. E. 1988. The interendocrine regulation of larval-pupal development in the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta: A model. J. Insect Physiol, 34:941-947.
Bounhiol, J. J. 1938. Reserches experimentalessur le determinisme de la metamorphose chez Lepidopteres. Biol. Bull. Supp, 24:1-199.
Britton, J. S., and B. A. Edgar. 1998. Environmental control of the cell cycle in Drosophila: Nutrition activates mitotic and endoreplicative cells by distinct mechanisms. Development, 125:2149-2158.[Abstract]
Britton, J. S., W. K. Lockwood, L. Li, S. M. Cohen, and B. A. Edgar. 2002. Drosophila's insulin/PI3-Kinase pathway coordinates cellular metabolism with nutritional conditions. Dev. Cell, 2:239-249.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Brogiolo, W., H. Stocker, T. Ikeya, F. Rintelen, R. Fernandez, and E. Hafen. 2001. An evolutionarily conserved function of the Drosophila insulin receptor and insulin-like peptides in growth control. Current Biol, 11:213-221.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Browder, M. H., L. J. D'Amico, and H. F. Nijhout. 2001. The role of low levels of juvenile hormone esterase in the metamorphosis of Manduca sexta. J. Insect Sci, 1:1-4.[Medline]
Bryant, P. J. 2001. Growth factors controlling imaginal disc growth in Drosophila. The cell cycle and development. Wiley, Chichester (Novartis Foundation Symposium 237), pp. 182–199.
Burke, R., and K. Basler. 1996. Dpp receptors are autonomously required for cell proliferation in the entire developing Drosophila wing. Development, 122:2261-2269.[Abstract]
Calder, W. A., III. 1996. Size, function, and life history. Dover, Mineola, New York.
Campbell, G. T. 2002. Distalization of the Drosophila leg by graded EGF-receptor activity. Nature, 418:781-785.[CrossRef][Medline]
Campbell, G., T. Weaver, and A. Tomlinson. 1993. Axis specification in the developing Drosophila appendage: The role of wingless, decapentaplegic, and the homeobox aristaless. Cell, 74:1113-1123.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Champlin, D. T., and J. W. Truman. 1998. Ecdysteroids govern two phases of eye development during metamorphosis of the moth, Manduca sexta. Development, 125:2009-2018.[Abstract]
Chapman, R. F. 1982. The insects: Structure and function. Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Chen, C., J. Jack, and R. S. Garofalo. 1996. The Drosophila insulin receptor is required for normal growth. Endocrinology, 137:846-856.[Abstract]
Cherbas, P., and L. Cherbas. 1996. Molecular aspects of ecdysteroid hormone action. In L. I. Gilbert, J. R. Tata, and B. G. Atkinson (eds.), Metamorphosis: Postembryonic reprogramming of gene expression in amphibian and insect cells, pp. 175–222. Academic Press, San Diego.
Chihara, C. J., and J. W. Fristrom. 1973. Effects and interactions of juvenile hormone and ß-ecdysone on Drosophila imaginal disc cultured in vitro. Dev. Biol, 35:36-46.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Chihara, C. J., W. H. Petri, J. W. Fristrom, and D. S. King. 1972. The assay of ecdysones and juvenile hormones in Drosophila imaginal discs in vitro. J. Insect Physiol, 18:1115-1123.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cock, A. G. 1966. Genetical aspects of metrical growth and form in animals. Q. Rev. Biol, 41:131-190.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cohen, S. M. 1993. Imaginal disc development. In M. Bate and A. Martinez-Arias (eds.), The development of Drosophila melanogaster, pp. 747–841. Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press, New York.
Conlon, I., and M. Raff. 1999. Size control in animal development. Cell, 96:235-244.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cook, D. 1986. Sexual selection in dung beetles I. A multivariate study of the morphological variation in two species of Onthophagus (Scarabaeidae: Onthophagini). Aust. J. Zool, 35:123-132.
Cottam, D. M., and M. J. Milner. 1998. The effect of juvenile hormone on the response of the Drosophila imaginal disc cell line C1 8+ to moulting hormone. J. Insect Physiol, 44:1137-1144.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cummins, M., J. I. Pueyo, S. A. Greig, and J. P. Couso. 2003. Comparative analysis of leg and antenna development in wild-type and homeotic Drosophila melanogaster. Dev. Genes and Evol, 213:319-27.[CrossRef]
D'Amico, L. J., G. Davidowitz, and H. F. Nijhout. 2001. The developmental and physiological basis of body size evolution in an insect. Proc. R. Soc. London B, 268:1589-1593.[Medline]
Danforth, B. N. 1991. The morphology and behavior of dimorphic males in Perdita portalis (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol, 29:235-247.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Danforth, B. N., and C. A. Desjardins. 1999. Male dimorphism in Perdita portalis (Hymenoptera, Andrenidae) has arisen from preexisting allometric patterns. Insectes Soc, 46:18-28.
Danforth, B. N., and J. L. Neff. 1992. Male polymorphism and polyethism in Perdita texana (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am, 85:616-626.
Day, S. J., and P. A. Lawrence. 2000. Measuring dimensions: The regulation of size and shape. Development, 127:2977-2987.[Abstract]
de Wilde, H., and J. Beetsma. 1982. The physiology of caste development in social insects. Adv. Insect Physiol, 19:167-246.
Diaz-Benjumea, F. J., B. Cohen, and S. M. Cohen. 1994. Cell interaction between compartments establishes the proximo-distal axis of Drosophila legs. Nature, 372:175-179.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dingle, H., and R. Winchell. 1997. Juvenile hormone as a mediator of plasticity in insect life histories. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol, 35:359-373.[CrossRef]
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., C. J. Von Zuben, H. G. Fowler, M. N. Schlindwein, and O. C. Bueno. 1994. Multivariate morphometrics and allometry in a polymorphic ant. Ins. Soc, 41:153-163.
Dodson, P. 1975. Taxonomic implications of relative growth in Lambeosaurine hadrosaurs. Syst. Zool, 24:37-54.
Dogra, G. S., G. M. Ulrich, and H. Rembold. 1977. A comparative study of the endocrine system of the honeybee larva under normal and experimental conditions. Z. Naturforsch. Sect. C, Biosci, 32:637-642.
Dominick, O. S., and J. W. Truman. 1985. The physiology of wandering behaviour in Manduca sexta. II. The endocrine control of wandering behavior. J. Exp. Biol, 117:45-68.
Eberhard, W. G. 1982. Beetle horn dimorphism: Making the best of a bad lot. Amer. Natur, 119:420-426.[CrossRef]
Eberhard, W. G., and E. Gutierrez. 1991. Male dimorphism in beetles and earwigs and the question of developmental constraints. Evolution, 45:18-28.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Edgar, B. A. 1999. From small flies come big discoveries about size control. Nature Cell Bio, 1:E191-E193.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Emery, I. F., V. Bedian, and G. M. Guild. 1994. Differential expression of Broad-Complex transcription factors may forecast tissue-specific developmental fates during Drosophila metamorphosis. Development, 120:3275-3287.[Abstract]
Emlen, D. J. 1996. Artificial selection on horn length-body size allometry in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Evolution, 50:1219-30.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Emlen, D. J. 2000. Integrating development with evolution: A case study with beetle horns. BioScience, 50:403-418.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Emlen, D. J., and H. F. Nijhout. 1999. Hormonal control of male horn length dimorphism in the horned beetle Onthophagus taurus. J. Insect Physiol, 45:45-53.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Emlen, D. J., and H. F. Nijhout. 2000. The development and evolution of exaggerated morphologies in insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol, 45:661-708.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Emlen, D. J., and H. F. Nijhout. 2001. Hormonal control of male horn length dimorphism in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): A second critical period of sensitivity to juvenile hormone. J. Insect Physiol, 47:1045-1054.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Evans, J. D., and D. E. Wheeler. 1999. Differential gene expression between developing queens and workers in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 96:5575-5580.
Feener, D. H., Jr., J. R. B. Lighton, and G. A. Bartholomew. 1988. Curvilinear allometry, energetics and foraging ecology: A comparison of leaf-cutting ants and army ants. Funct. Ecol, 2:509-520.
Fristrom, D., and J. W. Fristrom. 1993. The metamorphic development of the adult epidermis. In M. Bate and A. Martinez-Arias (eds.), The development of Drosophila melanogaster, pp. 843– 897. Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press, New York.
Fristrom, J. W., D. K. Fristrom, E. Fekete, and A. H. Kuniyuki. 1977. The mechanism of evagination of imaginal discs of Drosophila melanogaster. Amer. Zool, 17:671-684.
Fujiwara, H., M. Jindra, R. Newitt, S. R. Palli, K. Hiruma, and L. W. Riddiford. 1995. Cloning of an ecdysone receptor homolog from Manduca sexta and the developmental profile of its mRNA in wings. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol, 25:845-856.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Fukuda, S. 1952. Function of the pupal brain and subesophageal ganglion in the production of non-diapause and diapause eggs in the silkworm. Annot. Zool. Jap, 25:149-155.
Galindo, M. I., S. A. Bishop, S. Greig, and J. P. Couso. 2002. Leg patterning driven by proximal-distal interactions and EGFR signaling. Science, 297:256-259.
Galloni, M., and B. A. Edgar. 1999. Cell-autonomous and non-autonomous growth-defective mutants of Drosophila melanogaster. Development, 126:2365-2375.[Abstract]
Garoia, F., D. Guerra, M. Pezzoli, A. Lopez-Varea, S. Cavicci, and A. Garcia-Bellido. 2000. Cell behavior of Drosophila fat cadherin mutations in wing development. Mech. Dev, 94:95-1009.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Garcia-Bellido, A. 1965. Larvalentwicklung transplantierter organe von Drosophila melanogaster im adultmilieu. J. Insect Physiol, 11:1071-1078.
Garcia-Bellido, A. C., and A. Garcia-Bellido. 1998. Cell proliferation in the attainment of constant sizes and shapes: The entelechia model. Int. J. Dev. Biol, 42:353-362.[Web of Science][Medline]
Gehring, W., and R. Nothiger. 1973. The imaginal discs of Drosophila. In S. J. Counce and C. H. Waddington (eds.), Developmental systems: Insects, Vol. 2, pp. 211–290. Academic Press, London.
Gibson, M. C., and G. Schubiger. 1999. Hedgehog is required for activation of engrailed during regeneration of fragmented imaginal discs. Development, 126:1591-1599.[Abstract]
Gilbert, L. I. 1989. The endocrine control of molting: The tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta, as a model system. In J. Koolman (ed.), Ecdysone: From chemistry to mode of action, pp. 448– 471. Thieme-Verlag, Stuttgart.
Gilbert, L. I., R. Rybczynski, and S. Tobe. 1996. Endocrine cascade in insect metamorphosis. In L. I. Gilbert, J. R. Tata, and B. G Atkinson (eds.), Metamorphosis: Postembryonic reprogramming of gene expression in amphibian and insect cells, pp. 60– 108. Academic Press, San Diego.
Goewie, E. A. 1978. Regulation of caste differentiation in the honeybee (Apis melifera L.). Meded. Landbouwhogesch. Wageningen, 78:1-76.
Go, M. J., D. S. Eastman, and S. Artavanis-Tsakonas. 1998. Cell proliferation control by Notch signalling in Drosophila development. Development, 125:2031-2040.[Abstract]
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Phil. Soc, 41:587-640.
Grimaldi, D., and G. Fenster. 1989. Evolution of extreme sexual dimorphisms: Structural and behavioral convergence among broad-headed male Drosophilidae (Diptera). American Museum Noviates, number 2939: pp. 1–25.
Grimm, S., and G. O. Pflugfelder. 1996. Control of the gene optomotor-blind in Drosophila wing development by decapentaplegic and wingless. Science, 271:1601-1604.[Abstract]
Hammock, B. D. 1985. Regulation of juvenile hormone titer: Degradation. In G. A. Kerkut and L. I. Gilbert (eds.), Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology, Vol. 7, pp. 431–472. Pergamon, New York.
Hartfelder, K., and W. Engels. 1992. Allometric and multivariate analysis of sex and caste polymorphism in the neotropical stingless bee, Scaptotrigona postica. Ins. Soc, 39:251-266.[CrossRef]
Hartfelder, K., J. Cnaani, and A. Hefetz. 2000. Caste-specific differences in ecdysteroid titers in early larval stages of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. J. Insect Physiol, 46:1433-1439.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Held, L. I. J. 1995. Axes, boundaries and coordinates: The ABC's of fly leg development. BioEssays, 17:721-732.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hinton, H. E. 1958. Concealed phases in the metamorphosis of insects. Sci. Progr, 182:260-275.
Hiruma, K., T. Shinoda, F. Malone, and L. W. Riddiford. 1999. Juvenile hormone modulates 20-hydroxyecdysone-inducible ecdysone receptor and ultraspiracle gene expression in the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Dev. Genes Evol, 209:18-30.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hodin, J., and L. M. Riddiford. 2000. Different mechanisms underlie phenotypic plasticity and interspecific variation for a reproductive character in Drosophilids (Insecta: Diptera). Ecolution, 54:1638-1653.
Huang, H., C. J. Potter, W. Tao, D. M. Li, W. Brogiolo, and F. Hafen.et al. 1999. PTEN affects cell size, cell proliferation and apoptosis during Drosophila eye development. Development, 126:5365-5372.[Abstract]
Hunt, J., and L. W. Simmons. 1997. Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry in beetle horns: An experimental examination of the honest signaling hypothesis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol, 41:109-114.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Huxley, J. S. 1931. Relative growth of mandibles in stag-beetles (Lucanidae). Linn. Soc. Journ. (Zool.), 37:675-703.
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of relative growth. Methuen and Co., Ltd., London.
Iguchi, Y. 1998. Horn dimorphism of Allomyrina dichotoma septentrionalis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) affected by larval nutrition. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am, 91:845-847.[Web of Science]
Ikeya, T., M. Galic, P. Belawat, K. Nairz, and E. Hafen. 2002. Nutrient-dependent expression of insulin-like peptides from neuroendocrine cells in the CNS contributes to growth regulation in Drosophila. Curr. Biol, 12:1293-1300.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Imasheva, A. G., D. V. Bosenko, and O. A. Bubli. 1999. Variation in morphological traits of Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) under nutritional stress. Heredity, 82:187-192.[CrossRef][Medline]
Irvine, K. D., and E. Wieschaus. 1994. Fringe, a boundary-specific signaling molecule, mediates interactions between dorsal and ventral cells during Drosophila wing development. Cell, 79:595-606.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jiang, J., and G. Struhl. 1996. Complementary and mutually exclusive activities of Decapentaplegic and Wingless organize axial patterning during Drosophila leg development. Cell, 86:1-409.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jindra, M., F. Malone, K. Hiruma, and L. W. Riddiford. 1996. Developmental profiles and ecdysteroid regulation of the mRNAs for two ecdysone receptor isoforms in the epidermis and wings of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Dev. Biol, 180:258-272.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jockusch, E. L., C. Nulsen, S. J. Newfeld, and L. M. Nagy. 2000. Leg development in flies versus grasshoppers: Differences in dpp expression do not lead to differences in the expression of downstream components of the leg patterning pathway. Development, 127:1617-1626.[Abstract]
Johansson, A. S. 1958. Relation of nutrition to endocrine functions in the milkweed bug Oncopeltus fasciatus (Dallas) (Heteroptera, Lygaeidae). Nytt. Mag. Zool. (Oslo), 7:1-132.
Johnson, R. L., J. K. Grenier, and M. P. Scott. 1995. Patched overexpression alters wing disc size and pattern: Transcriptional and post-transcriptional effects of hedgehog targets. Development, 121:4161-4170.[Abstract]
Johnston, L. A., and P. Gallant. 2002. Control of growth and organ size in Drosophila. BioEssays, 24:54-64.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Johnston, L. A., and G. Schubiger. 1996. Ectopic expression of wingless in imaginal discs interferes with decapentaplegic expression and alters cell determination. Development, 122:3519-3529.[Abstract]
Karim, F. D., and C. S. Thummel. 1992. Temporal coordination of regulatory gene expression by the steroid hormone ecdysone. EMBO J, 11:4083-4093.[Web of Science][Medline]
Kawamura, K., T. Shibata, O. Saget, D. Peel, and P. J. Bryant. 1999. A new family of growth factors produced by the fat body and active on Drosophila imaginal disc cells. Development, 126:211-219.[Abstract]
Kawano, K. 1995a. Horn and wing allometry and male dimorphism in giant rhinoceros beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) of tropical Asia and America. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am, 88:92-99.
Kawano, K. 1995b. Habitat shift and phenotypic character displacement in sympatry of two closely related rhinoceros beetle species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am, 88:641-652.
Keisman, E. L., and B. S. Baker. 2001. The Drosophila sex determination hierarchy modulates wingless and decapentaplegic signaling to deploy dachshund sex-specifically in the genital imaginal disc. Development, 128:1643-1656.[Abstract]
Keisman, E. L., A. E. Christiansen, and B. S. Baker. 2001. The sex determination gene doublesex regulates the A/P organizer to direct sex-specific patterns of growth in the Drosophila genital imaginal disc. Dev. Cell, 1:215-225.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Klingenberg, C. P. 1996. Multivariate allometry. In L. F. Marcus (ed.), Advances in morphometrics, pp. 23–49. Plenum Press, New York.
Kopec, S. 1922. Studies on the necessity of the brain for the inception of insect metamorphosis. Biol. Bull, 42:323-341.
Kremen, C. 1989. Patterning during pupal commitment of the epidermis in the butterfly, Precis coenia: The role of intercellular communication. Dev. Biol, 133:336-347.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kremen, C., and H. F. Nijhout. 1998. Control of pupal commitment in the imaginal discs of Precis coenia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J. Insect Physiol, 44:287-296.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kukuk, P. F. 1996. Male dimorphism in Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) hemichalceum: The role of larval nutrition. J. Kans. Entomol. Soc, 69:suppl.:147-157.
Kukuk, P. F., and M. P. Schwartz. 1988. Macrocephalic male bees as functional reproductives and probable guards. Pan-Pacific Entomol, 64:131-137.
LaBarbera, M. 1989. Analyzing body size as a factor in ecology and evolution. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst, 20:97-117.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain:body size allometry. Evolution, 33:402-416.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Lawrence, P. A., and G. Morata. 1976. The compartment hypothesis. In P. A. Lawrence (ed.), Insect development, pp. 132–147. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
Lawrence, P. A., and G. Struhl. 1996. Morphogens, compartments, and pattern: Lessons from Drosophila? Cell, 85:951-961.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lee, J. J., D. P. von Kessler, S. Parks, and P. A. Beachy. 1992. Secretion and localized transcription suggests a role in positional signaling for products of the segmentation gene hedgehog. Cell, 71:33-50.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lenz, M. 1976. The dependence of hormone effects in termite caste determination on external factors. In M. Lüscher (ed.), Phase and caste determination in insects: Endocrine aspects, pp. 73– 89. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Lepesant, J.-A., and G. Richards. 1989. Ecdysteroid-regulated genes. In J. Koolman (ed.), Ecdysone: From chemistry to mode of action, pp. 355–367. Thieme-Verlag, Stuttgart.
Martín-Castellanos, C., and B. A. Edgar. 2002. A characterization of the effects of Dpp signaling on cell growth and proliferation in the Drosophila wing. Development, 129:1003-1013.[Web of Science][Medline]
Masumura, M., S. Satake, H. Saegusa, and A. Mizoguchi. 2000. Glucose stimulates the release of bombyxin, and insulin-related peptide of the silkworm Bombyx mori. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol, 118:385-34.[CrossRef]
McMahon, T. 1973. Size and shape in biology. Science, 179:1201-1204.
Meyer, D. R., F. N. Sachs, and R. M. Rohner. 1980. Parameters for growth of the imaginal wing disc in last instar larvae of Galleria mellonella L. J. Exp. Zool, 213:185-197.[CrossRef]
Milán, M., S. Campuzano, and A. Garcia-Bellido. 1996. Cell cycling and patterned cell proliferation in the wing primordium of Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 93:640-645.
Milner, M. J., and A. Dübendorfer. 1982. Tissue-specific effects of the juvenile hormone analogue ZR 515 during metamorphosis in Drosophila cell cultures. J. Insect Physiol, 28:661-666.
Miner, A. L., A. J. Rosenberg, and H. F. Nijhout. 2000. Control of growth and differentiation of the wing imaginal disk of Precis coenia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J. Insect Physiol, 46:251-258.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Miura, T., A. Kamikouchi, M. Sawata, H. Takeuchi, S. Natori, T. Kubo, and T. Matsumoto. 1999. Soldier caste-specific gene expression in the mandibular glands of Hodotermopsis japonica (Isoptera: Termopsidae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 96:13874-13879.
Miura, T., and T. Matsumoto. 2000. Soldier morphogenesis in a nasute termite: Discovery of a disk-like structure forming a soldier nasus. Proc. R. Soc. B, 267:1185-1189.[Medline]
Moczek, A. P., and D. J. Emlen. 1999. Proximate determination of male horn dimorphism in the beetle Onthophagus taurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Evol. Biol, 11:27-37.[CrossRef]
Moczek, A. P., and H. F. Nijhout. 2002. Developmental mechanisms of threshold evolution in a polyphenic beetle. Evol. Devol, 4:252-264.
Moczek, A. P., J. Hunt, D. J. Emlen, and L. W. Simmons. 2002. Threshold evolution in exotic populations of a polyphenic beetle. Evol. Ecol. Res, 4:587-601.
Monsma, S. A., and R. Booker. 1996. Genesis of the adult retina and outer optic lobes of the moth, Manduca sexta I. Patterns of proliferation and cell death. J. Comp. Neurol, 367:10-20.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Montagne, J., M. J. Stewart, H. Stocker, E. Hafen, S. C. Kozma, and G. Thomas. 1999. Drosophila S6 Kinase: A regulator of cell size. Science, 285:2126-2129.
Moreno, E., K. Basler, and G. Morata. 2002. Cells compete for Decapentaplegic survival factor to prevent apoptosis in Drosophila wing development. Nature, 416:755-759.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nellen, D., R. Burke, G. Struhl, and K. Basler. 1996. Direct and long-range action of a DPP morphogen gradient. Cell, 85:357-368.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Neumann, C. J., and S. M. Cohen. 1996. Distinct mitogenic and cell fate specification functions of wingless in different regions of the wing. Development, 122:1781-1789.[Abstract]
Nijhout, H. F. 1975. A threshold size for metamorphosis in the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta (L). Biol. Bull, 149:214-225.
Nijhout, H. F. 1994. Insect hormones. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Nijhout, H. F. 1999. Control mechanisms of polyphenic development in insects. BioScience, 49:181-192.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Nijhout, H. F. 2003. The control of body size in insects. Dev. Biol, 261:1-9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Nijhout, H. F., and L. W. Grunert. 2003. Bombyxin is a growth factor for wing imaginal disks in Lepidoptera. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 99:15446-15450.
Nijhout, H. F., and D. E. Wheeler. 1982. Juvenile hormone and the physiological basis of insect polymorphisms. Quarterly Rev. Bio, 57:109-133.[CrossRef]
Nijhout, H. F., and D. E. Wheeler. 1996. Growth models of complex allometries in holometabolous insects. Amer. Natur, 148:40-56.
Nijhout, H. F., and C. M. Williams. 1974. Control of moulting and metamorphosis in the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta (L.): Growth of the last instar larva and the decision to pupate. J. Exp. Biol, 61:481-491.
Niwa, N., Y. Inoue, A. Nozawa, M. Saito, Y. Misumi, H. Ohuchi, H. Yoshioka, and S. Noji. 2000. Correlation of diversity of leg morphology in Gryllus bimaculatus (cricket) with divergence in dpp expression pattern during leg development. Development, 127:4373-4381.[Abstract]
Oberlander, H. 1985. The imaginal discs. In G. A. Kerkut and L. I. Gilbert (eds.), Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry, and pharmacology, Vol. 2, pp. 151–182. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Oberlander, H., and C. Tomblin. 1972. Cuticle deposition in imaginal discs: Effects of juvenile hormone and fat body in vitro. Science, 177:441-442.
Oberlander, H., D. L. Silhacek, and C. E. Leach. 1998. Interactions of ecdysteroid and juvenoid agonists in Plodia interpunctella (Hübner). Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol, 38:91-99.[CrossRef]
Oberlander, H., C. E. Leach, and E. Shaaya. 2000. Juvenile hormone and juvenile hormone mimics inhibit proliferation in a lepidopteran imaginal disc cell line. J. Insect Physiol, 46:259-265.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Ohtaki, T., F. Yamanaka, and S. Sakurai. 1986. Differential timing of pupal commitment in various tissues of the silkworm, Bombyx mori. J. Insect Physiol, 32:635-642.
Ono, S. 1982. Effect of juvenile hormone on the caste determination in the ant Pheidole fervida Smith (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool, 17:1-7.
Otte, D., and K. Stayman. 1979. Beetle horns: Some patterns in functional morphology. In M. Blum and N. Blum (eds.), Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects, pp. 259–292. Academic Press, New York.
Paulian, R. 1935. Le polymorphisme des males de Coléopteres. In G. Tessier (ed.), Exposés de Biométrie et Statistique Biologique IV. Actualités Scientifiques et Industrielles 255, pp.1–33. Hermann, Paris.
Peel, D. J., and M. J. Milner. 1992. The response of Drosophila imaginal disc cell lines to ecdysteroids. Roux's Arch. Dev. Biol, 202:23-35.[CrossRef]
Peifer, M., C. Rauskolb, M. Williams, B. Riggleman, and E. Wieschaus. 1991. The segment polarity gene armadillo interacts with the wingless signalling pathway in both embryonic and adult pattern formation. Development, 111:1029-1043.
Pohley, H.-J. 1965. Regeneration and the moulting cycle in Ephestia kühniella. In V. Kiortsis and H. A. L. Trampusch (eds.), Regeneration in animals and related problems, pp. 324–330. North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam.
Pueyo, J. I., M. I. Galindo, S. A. Bishop, and J. P. Couso. 2000. Proximal-distal leg development in Drosophila requires the apterous gene and the Lim1 homologue dlim1. Development, 127:5391-5402.[Abstract]
Rachinsky, A., and K. Hartfelder. 1990. Corpora allata activity, a prime regulating element for caste-specific juvenile hormone titre in honey bee larvae (Apis mellifera carnica). J. Insect Physiol, 36:189-194.
Raff, M. C. 1996. Size control: The regulation of cell numbers in animal development. Cell, 86:173-175.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Rasmussen, J. 1994. The influence of horn and body size on the reproductive behavior of the horned rainbow scarab beetle Phanaeus difformis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Insect Behav, 7:67-82.[CrossRef]
Rauskolb, C., and K. D. Irvine. 1999. Notch-mediated segmentation and growth control of the Drosophila leg. Dev. Biol, 210:339-350.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Reddy, G., D. C. McCaleb, and A. K. Kumaran. 1980. Tissue distribution of JH hydrolytic activity in Gallerie mellonella larvae. Experientia, 56:461-462.[CrossRef]
Rembold, H. 1987. Caste specific modulation of juvenile hormone titers in Apis mellifera. Insect Biochem, 17:1003-1007.[CrossRef]
Riddiford, L. M. 1978. Ecdysone-induced change in cellular commitment of the epidermis of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta, at the initiation of metamorphosis. Gen. Comp. Endocr, 34:438-446.[Medline]
Riddiford, L. M. 1981. Hormonal control of epidermal cell development. Amer. Zool, 21:751-762.
Riddiford, L. M. 1982. Changes in translatable mRNA's during the larval-pupal transformation of the epidermis of the tobacco hornworm. Dev. Biol, 92:330-342.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Riddiford, L. M. 1985. Hormone action at the cellular level. In G. A. Kerkut and L. I. Gilbert (eds.), Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry, and pharmacology, Vol. 8, pp. 37–84. Pergamon, New York.
Riddiford, L. M. 1994. Cellular and molecular actions of juvenile hormone I. General considerations and premetamorphic actions. Adv. Insect Physiol, 24:213-274.[CrossRef]
Riddiford, L. M. 1996. Molecular aspects of juvenile hormone action in insect metamorphosis. In L. I. Gilbert, J. R. Tata, and B. G. Atkinson (eds.), Metamorphosis: Postembryonic reprogramming of gene expression in amphibian and insect cells, pp. 223– 253. Academic Press, San Diego.
Riddiford, L. M., and K. Hiruma. 1988. Regulation of melanization in insect cuticle. In J. T. Bagnara (ed.), Advances in pigment cell research, pp. 423–436. Alan R. Liss, New York.
Riddiford, L. M., and M. L. Kiely. 1981. The hormonal control of commitment in the insect epidermis—cellular and molecular aspects. In F. Sehnal, A. Zabza, J. J. Menn, and B. Cymborowski (eds.), Regulation of insect development and behavior, pp. 485– 496. Wroclaw technical University Press, Wroclaw.
Riddiford, L. M., K. Hiruma, Q. Lan, and B. Zhou. 1999. Regulation and role of nuclear receptors during larval molting and metamorphosis of Lepidoptera. Amer. Zool, 39:736-746.
Rountree, D. B., and W. E. Bollenbacher. 1986. The release of the prothoracicotropic hormone in the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta, is controlled intrinsically by juvenile hormone. J. Exp. Biol, 120:41-58.
Rulifson, E. J., S. K. Kim, and R. Nusse. 2002. Ablation of insulin-producing neurons in flies: Growth and diabetic phenotypes. Science, 296:1118-1120.
Safranek, L., B. Cymborowski, and C. B. Williams. 1980. Effects of juvenile hormone on ecdysone-dependent development in the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Biol. Bull, 158:248-256.
Scharf, M. E., D. Wu-Scharf, B. R. Pittendrigh, and G. W. Bennett. 2003. Caste-and development-associated gene expression in a lower termite. Genome Biol, 4:R62.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: Why is animal size so important?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Schooley, D. A., and F. C. Baker. 1985. Juvenile hormone biosynthesis. In G. A. Kerkut and L. I. Gilbert (eds.), Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology, Vol. 7, pp. 363–389. Pergamon, New York.
Sehnal, F., P. Svácha, and J. Zrzavy. 1996. Evolution of insect metamorphosis. In L. I. Gilbert, J. R. Tata, and B. G. Atkinson (eds.), Metamorphosis: Postembryonic reprogramming of gene expression in amphibian and insect cells, pp. 3–58. Academic Press, San Diego.
Serrano, N., and P. H. O'Farrell. 1997. Limb morphogenesis: Connections between patterning and growth. Current Biology, 7:R186-R195.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Simmons, L. W., and J. L. Tomkins. 1996. Sexual selection and the allometry of earwig forceps. Evol. Ecol, 10:97-104.[CrossRef]
Smagghe, G., and D. Degheele. 1994. Effects of the ecdysteroid agonists RH 5849 and RH 5992, alone and in combination with a juvenile hormone analogue, pyriproxyfen, on larvae of Spodoptera exigua. Entomol. Exp. Appl, 72:115-123.[CrossRef]
Stern, D. L. S. 2003a. The Hox gene Ultrabithorax modulates the shape and size of the third leg of Drosophila by influencing diverse mechanisms. Dev. Biol, 256:355-366.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Stern, D. L. S. 2003b. Body size control: How an insect knows it has grown enough. Curr. Biol, 13:R267-R269.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Stern, D. L. S., and D. J. Emlen. 1999. The developmental basis for allometry in insects. Development, 126:1091-1101.[Abstract]
Stern, D. L. S., A. Moon, and C. Martinez del Rio. 1996. Caste allometries in the soldier-producing aphid Pseudoregma alexanderi (Hormaphididae: Aphidoidea). Ins. Soc, 43:137-147.
Struhl, G., and K. Basler. 1993. Organizing activity of Wingless protein in Drosophila. Cell, 72:527-540.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Svácha, P. 1992. What are and what are not imaginal discs: Reevaluation of some basic concepts (Insect, Holometabola). Dev. Biol, 154:101-117.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Talbot, W. S., E. A. Swyryd, and D. Hogness. 1993. Drosophila tissues with different metamorphic responses to ecdysone express different ecdysone receptor isoforms. Cell, 73:1323-1337.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tatar, M., A. Kopelman, D. Epstein, M.-P. Tu, C.-M. Yin, and R. S. Garofalo. 2001. A mutant Drosophila insulin receptor homolog that extends life-span and impairs neuroendocrine function. Science, 292:107-110.
Thompson, D'Arcy. 1917. On growth and form. Abridged ed. J. T. Bonner (ed.). Cambridge University Press. 1961.
Tobe, S. S., and B. Stay. 1985. Structure and regulation of the corpus allatum. Adv. Insect Physiol, 18:305-432.
Tomkins, J. L., and L. W. Simmons. 1996. Dimorphisms and fluctuating asymmetry in the forceps of male earwigs. J. Evol. Biol, 9:753-770.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Truman, J. W., L. M. Riddiford, and L. Safranek. 1974. Temporal patterns of response to ecdysone and juvenile hormone in the epidermis of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Dev. Biol, 39:247-262.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Truman, J. W., and L. M. Riddiford. 1999. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature, 401:447-452.[CrossRef][Medline]
Truman, J. W., and L. M. Riddiford. 2002. Endocrine insights into the evolution of metamorphosis in insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol, 47:467-500.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tu, M.-P., C.-M. Yin, and M. Tatar. 2002. Impaired ovarian ecdysone synthesis of Drosophila melanogaster insulin receptor mutants. Aging Cell, 1:158-160.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tu, M.-P., and M. Tatar. 2003. Juvenile diet restriction and the aging and reproduction of adult Drosophila melanogaster. Aging Cell (In press).
Turing, A. 1952. The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, 237:37-72.
Velthius, H. H. W. 1976. Environmental, genetic and endocrine influences in stingless bee caste determination. In M. Lüscher (ed.), Phase and caste determination in insects: Endocrine aspects, pp. 35–53. Pergamon Press, New York.
Verdu, J., M. A. Buratovich, E. L. Wilder, and M. J. Birnbaum. 1999. Cell-autonomous regulation of cell and organ growth in Drosophila by Akt/PKB. Nature Cell Bio, 1:500-506.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Vogel, A., C. Rodriguez, W. Warnken, and J. C. Izpisúa-Belmonte. 1995. Dorsal cell fate specified by chick Lmx1 during vertebrate limb development. Nature, 378:716-720.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wake, D., and B. Hall. 1999. The origin and evolution of larval forms. Academic Press, New York.
Wang, D.-I. 1965. Growth rates of young queen and worker honeybee larvae. J. Apic. Res, 4:3-5.
Ward, P. S. 1997. Ant soldiers are not modified queens. Nature, 385:494-495.[Medline]
Weatherbee, S. D., H. F. Nijhout, L. W. Grunert, G. Halder, R. Galant, J. Selegue, and S. Carroll. 1999. Ultrabithorax functions in butterfly wings and the evolution of insect wing patterns. Curr. Biol, 9:109-115.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Weaver, T. A., and R. A. H. White. 1995. Headcase, an imaginal specific gene required for adult morphogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Development, 121:4149-4160.[Abstract]
Weinkove, D., and S. J. Leevers. 2000. The genetic control of organ growth: Insights from Drosophila. Curr. Opinion Genet. Dev, 10:75-80.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Weinkove, D., T. Neufeld, T. Twardzik, M. Waterfield, and S. J. Leevers. 1999. Regulation of imaginal disc cell size, cell number and organ size by Drosophila class IA phosphinositide 3-kinase and its adaptor. Curr. Biol, 9:1019-1029.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Wheeler, D. E. 1991. The developmental basis of worker caste polymorphism in ants. Am. Nat, 138:1218-1238.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Wheeler, D. E., and H. F. Nijhout. 1981. Soldier determination in ants: New role for juvenile hormone. Science, 213:361-363.
Wheeler, D. E., and H. F. Nijhout. 1983. Soldier determination in Pheidole bicarinata: Effect of methoprene on caste and size within castes. J. Insect Physiol, 29:847-854.
Wigglesworth, V. B. 1940. Local and general factors in the development of "pattern" in Rhodnius prolixus (Hemiptera). J. Exp. Biol, 17:180-200.[Abstract]
Wigglesworth, V. B. 1953. The principles of insect physiology. Methuen and Co., Ltd., London.
Wilder, E. L., and N. Perrimon. 1995. Dual function of wingless in the Drosophila leg imaginal disc. Development, 121:477-488.[Abstract]
Wilkinson, G. S., and G. N. Dodson. 1997. Function and evolution of antlers and eye stalks in flies. In J. C. Choe and B. J. Crespi (eds.), The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids, pp. 310–328. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Williams, C. M. 1961. The juvenile hormone. II. Its role in the endocrine control of molting, pupation, and adult development in the cecropia silkworm. Biol. Bull, 121:572-585.
Williams, C. 1980. Growth in insects. In M. Locke and D. S. Smith (eds.), Insect biology in the future, pp. 369–383. Academic Press, New York.
Wilson, E. O. 1953. The origin and evolution of polymorphism in ants. Quart. Rev. Biol, 28:136-156.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wilson, E. O. 1971. The insect societies. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Wu, J., and S. M. Cohen. 1999. Proximodistal axis formation in the Drosophila leg: Subdividsion into proximal and distal domains by Homothorax and Distal-less. Development, 126:109-117.[Abstract]
Wyss, C. 1976. Juvenile hormone analogue counteracts growth stimulation and inhibition by ecdysones in a clonal Drosophila cell line. Experientia, 32:1272-1274.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Yao, T.-P., W. A. Seagraves, A. E. Oro, M. McKeown, and R. M. Evans. 1992. Drosophila ultraspiracle modulates ecdysone receptor function via heterodimer formation. Cell, 71:63-72.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Zecca, M., K. Basler, and G. Struhl. 1995. Sequential organizing activities of engrailed, hedgehog and decapentaplegic in the Drosophila wing. Development, 121:2265-2278.[Abstract]
Zurovec, M., T. Dolezal, M. Gazi, E. Pavlova, and P. J. Bryant. 2002. Adenosine deaminase-related growth factors stimulate cell proliferation in Drosophila by depleting extracellular adenosine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 99:4403-4408.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. W. Shingleton, C. M. Estep, M. V. Driscoll, and I. Dworkin Many ways to be small: different environmental regulators of size generate distinct scaling relationships in Drosophila melanogaster Proc R Soc B, July 22, 2009; 276(1667): 2625 - 2633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. W Shingleton, C. K Mirth, and P. W Bates Developmental model of static allometry in holometabolous insects Proc R Soc B, August 22, 2008; 275(1645): 1875 - 1885. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||