Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31198948›Full record

ArticleIntegrative and comparative biology2019

Why does allometry evolve so slowly?

David Houle, Luke T Jones, Ryan Fortune, Jacqueline L Sztepanacz

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative and comparative biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The contribution of mutation and selection to multivariate quantitative genetic variance in an outbred population ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David HouleDepartment of Biology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Luke T JonesDepartment of Biology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Ryan FortuneDepartment of Biology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Jacqueline L SztepanaczDepartment of Biology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Florida State University · US

Funding

Resource Component: Acquisition, maintenance and distribution of Drosophila stocksP40OD018537 · OD · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI Annette L. Parks · 2014 to 2026
$13.5M
Building, understanding and applying a dictionary of genetic effectsR01GM094424 · NIGMS · FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI DWORKIN, IAN MICHAEL, HOULE, DAVID · 2010 to 2013
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM094424NIH HHS P40 OD018537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Morphological allometry is striking due to its evolutionary conservatism, making it an example of a certain sort of evolutionary stasis. Organisms that vary in size, whether for developmental, environmental, or evolutionary reasons, adopt shapes that are predictable from that size alone. There are two major hypotheses to explain this. It may be that natural selection strongly favors each allometric pattern, or that organisms lack the development and genetic capacity to produce variant shapes for selection to act on. Using a high-throughput system for measuring the size and shape of Drosophila wings, we documented an allometric pattern that has been virtually unchanged for 40 million years. We performed an artificial selection experiment on the static allometric slope within one species. In just 26 generations, we were able to increase the slope from 1.1 to 1.4, and decrease it to 0.8. Once artificial selection was suspended, the slope rapidly evolved back to a value near the initial static slope. This result decisively rules out the hypothesis that allometry is preserved due to a lack of genetic variation, and provides evidence that natural selection acts to maintain allometric relationships. On the other hand, it seems implausible that selection on allometry in the wing alone could be sufficiently strong to maintain static allometries over millions of years. This suggests that a potential explanation for stasis is selection on a potentially large number of pleiotropic effects. This seems likely in the case of allometry, as the sizes of all parts of the body may be altered when the allometric slope of one body part is changed. Unfortunately, hypotheses about pleiotropy have been very difficult to test. We lay out an approach to begin the systematic study of pleiotropic effects using genetic manipulations and high-throughput phenotyping.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterWings, Animal

Identifiers

PMID31198948
PMCPMC6863758
OpenAlexW2952706067

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.