Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27994126›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017

Waiting in the wings: what can we learn about gene co-option from the diversification of butterfly wing patterns?

Chris D Jiggins, Richard W R Wallbank, Joseph J Hanly

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Perfect mimicry betweenProceedings. Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  17. Temporal flexibility of gene regulatory network underlies a novel wing pattern in flies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Chris D JigginsDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK c.jiggins@zoo.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7809-062X
Richard W R WallbankDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.
Joseph J HanlyDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.

Funding

European Research Council 339873Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A major challenge is to understand how conserved gene regulatory networks control the wonderful diversity of form that we see among animals and plants. Butterfly wing patterns are an excellent example of this diversity. Butterfly wings form as imaginal discs in the caterpillar and are constructed by a gene regulatory network, much of which is conserved across the holometabolous insects. Recent work in Heliconius butterflies takes advantage of genomic approaches and offers insights into how the diversification of wing patterns is overlaid onto this conserved network. WntA is a patterning morphogen that alters spatial information in the wing. Optix is a transcription factor that acts later in development to paint specific wing regions red. Both of these loci fit the paradigm of conserved protein-coding loci with diverse regulatory elements and developmental roles that have taken on novel derived functions in patterning wings. These discoveries offer insights into the 'Nymphalid Ground Plan', which offers a unifying hypothesis for pattern formation across nymphalid butterflies. These loci also represent 'hotspots' for morphological change that have been targeted repeatedly during evolution. Both convergent and divergent evolution of a great diversity of patterns is controlled by complex alleles at just a few genes. We suggest that evolutionary change has become focused on one or a few genetic loci for two reasons. First, pre-existing complex cis-regulatory loci that already interact with potentially relevant transcription factors are more likely to acquire novel functions in wing patterning. Second, the shape of wing regulatory networks may constrain evolutionary change to one or a few loci. Overall, genomic approaches that have identified wing patterning loci in these butterflies offer broad insight into how gene regulatory networks evolve to produce diversity.This article is part of the themed issue 'Evo-devo in the genomics era, and the origins of morphological diversity'.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionGenes, InsectAnimalsButterfliesGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalGene Regulatory NetworksPigmentationSelection, GeneticWings, Animaladaptive radiationcis-regulatory evolutionevo-devogene regulatory networksLepidopteramimicry

Identifiers

PMID27994126
PMCPMC5182417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.