© 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 an