Quantcast
Channel: As Many Exceptions As Rules
Viewing all 288 articles
Browse latest View live

Thinking Skinny Thoughts Won’t Help

$
0
0

Biology concepts – undulipodia, primary cilia, chemosensing, obesity, depression, hydrocephalus, lithium

Winston Churchill once said that men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most people pick themselves up and carry on as if nothing had happened.


Gregor Mendel was Augustinian monk who really
joined the order because they would allow him to
study and learn for the rest of his life. Sounds like
the gig I would enjoy. Since he was a monk, do you
think he got angry that his discoveries were
ignored for 35 years?
In some cases we are shown the truth but don’t recognize it, as with Gregor Mendel’s discovery of the laws of genetics. Using his various pea plants, the Augustinian friar’s work was presented in 1865 and published 1866 – and then was forgotten for decades.

Mendel's paper was referenced only three times over next 35 years and his work wasn’t rediscovered until 1900. Two scientists gave Mendel much credit for the primacy of his work, but it really wasn’t until a fourth individual, William Bateson, came along that Mendel became widely known and his work accepted. It was Bateson coined the phrase “Mendel’s laws of inheritance.” Why did he champion Mendel so greatly – because he questioned Darwinism as incomplete. Well, it was incomplete at that time.

Just as the world was rediscovering Mendel, the primary cilium was discovered for the first time. The world didn’t exactly ignore it; we just had to wait for technology to catch up. Zimmerman first described the solitary hair sticking out of most cells in an 1898 German paper, but the next significant paper discussing primary cilia didn’t appear until 1961! We had to wait for the electron microscope and molecular biology to catch up.


The electron microscope was the piece of
equipment that allowed for deeper investigation
of the primary cilium structure. Even though the
first electron ‘scope was operational in 1931 (M.
Knoll and E. Ruska, inventors), it still took 30 years
to turn it’s power on the primary cilium. Was it
considered just an immotile cilium, or did someone
suspect it had more jobs to do? Molecular biological
techniques in the 1990’s answered that question and
led to an explosion of study on the solitary antenna
of most cells.
Last week we discussed how primary cilia are like the antennae of cells, they stick out into the extracellular environment and react to flow pressure (kidney tubule cells), vibration (hair cells of cochlea), chemicals (hormones and such) or even light (photoreceptor cilia). Now we’re realizing some of the amazing things that this sensing controls – your brain for instance.

You know that your brain works by transmitting electrical impulses through specific neural pathways. But chemistry in the brain is just as important as electricity. Hormones, neurotransmitters, even non-chemical signals like temperature and flow are converted to chemical and electrical signals via primary cilia.

As with so many other things, we learn biology best by studying what happens when things go wrong. You won’t believe the diseases that are being linked to this most innocuous of cell structures. Without any exaggeration, primary cilia make you smart, skinny, and happy. Let’s find out how.

Inside your brain are fluid filled cavities called ventricles. The ventricular system of the brain is connected through the ventricles and travel part way down your spinal column as well. They are filled with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and this fluid has many functions.


Here is the ventricular system of the vertebrate
brain. Blue = lateral ventricles, cyan= inter-
ventricular foramina, yellow = third ventricle,
red = cerebral aquaduct, purple = fourth ventricle,
green = central canal. What the image doesn’t show
is the connection that allows CSF to surround the
brain in the subarachanoid space, between the
brain and the skull. This is where 85% of the
CSF can be found.
Like an internal helmet, one of the functions of the CSF is to cushion the brain, acting as a shock absorber. But it does so much more than that. CSF also stabilizes the chemistry of the brain, and helps with blood perfusion by mediating the pressure in the cranium. Finally, the CSF removes waste products from the central nervous system.

The cells that line the ventricles are neuroepithelial cells called ependymal cells. They have motile cilia (2˚ cilia), as well as microvilli – which we learned last week aren’t cilia-like at all. The ependymal cell cilia beat in a specific direction depending on where they are in the system. The coordinated beating keeps the CSF flowing through the ventricles; flow is key to its functions.

The microvilli have a different job; they absorb CSF and transfer it into the brain tissue as a way of keeping the brain in the proper chemical environment. In this way, it helps mediate the CSF functions described above.

But there is a second cell type in the ependymal layer. B1 cells are pre-ependymal cells. When called upon, they differentiate to form more ependymal cells. These B1 cells are located just below the ependymal layer, but they have small areas where they stick up and touch the CSF. And here they each have a primary cilium.

A 2014 study showed that the B1 primary cilia actually control the function of the ependymal cell motile cilia. And since the motile cilia of B1 cells control pressure and flow of CSF in the ventricular system, it’s really the primary cilia who are in charge.

Because of this, a problem with the motile cilia of the ependymal cells or the primary cilia of B1 cells leads to disrupted CSF control and hydrocephalus. Hydrocephalus (hydro = water, and cephalo = brain) leads to increased intracranial pressure and this is lethal for neural tissue. Mental retardation, other complications, and death are the results of hydrocephalus.

So we already see that these short projections that were ignored for so long have one crucial job in the brain. But there’s more. It isn’t just their presence that matters; it’s their length.


Huntington’s chorea, or just plain Huntington’s
disease, is insidious; it’s lethal and there is no
treatment. It results in debilitating movements of
the motor system. Even though the genetic mutation
is with you your whole life, the disease doesn’t show
up until middle age, probably after you have had kids.
So you don’t know that you passed it on until it’s too
late. There is a test for it – would you want to know
if you had it?
Primary cilia have specific lengths in different cell types. Too long or too short and it’s like they aren’t there at all. In kidney tubule cells, increased urine flow bends the cilia, so they transmit signals to the cells, but too much signaling would be bad. Increased flow shortens the primary cilia so they become less responsive, and this is the control mechanism. In the ependymal layer, both motile and primary cilia length are crucial.

A genetic problem in a single cilial gene leads to a disease called Huntington’s chorea (means dance for the strange movements the patients make). A 2011 paper showed that the mutation lengthens both motile and primary cilia in the ventricles.  This in turn alters the beating of the motile cilia and disrupts flow of the CSF. This isn’t the only defect in the disease, but changes in CSF are thought to exacerbate the disease.

Interestingly, the changes in intracranial pressure via primary cilia changes can lead to obesity. How could CSF and eating be connected? Well, in a couple of ways – let’s investigate further.

There are several syndromes that include obesity in their list of symptoms, diseases like Bardet-Biedl syndrome, Carpenter syndrome, and others. The commonality in these diseases is that there are mutations that affect some aspect of primary cilia function, production, or maintenance. Changes in primary cilia can affect your weight?


No big message here, just thought the primary cilium
looked like Alfalfa from Our Gang. Length is crucial for
primary cilia– I suppose Alfalfa kept his a particularly
length too.
A 2007 paper narrowed down the subset of cells where the primary cilia are disrupted by putting different primary cilia under the control of different regulators in mice. Then they could wait until the mice grew up and turn off the primary cilia in various cell types. They found that it is just the POMC neurons in the hypothalamus that regulate obesity. This means that it is a brain and behavioral issue, not a problem with energy metabolism in the body.

POMC neurons make alpha-MSH and multifunctional hormone. This is released from the POMC neurons and acts on downstream pathways to tell you to stop eating. If the primary cilia on the POMC neurons are too short or absent, you experience hyperphagia (hyper = beyond, and phagia = eating), ie. compulsive eating. You just can’t stop eating.

Many of the syndromes that start as primary cilia problems show both compulsive eating AND hydrocephalus. So this explains how hydrocephalus may affect obesity in one, way, but there’s another. If you have a brain injury that damages the ependymal or B1 cilia, then hydrocephalus might result. The POMC neurons are located right next to the third ventricle, so increased intracranial pressure during hydrocephalus can damage them and lead to compulsive eating directly.


Notice how close the third ventricle is to the POMC
neurons of the hypothalamus. Hydrocephalus alone can
induce changes in primary cilia length on them so they
won’t respond to insulin or leptin. Then you
eat compulsively.
The question remains as to what signal(s) the POMC primary cilia are sensing in order to tell you to stop eating. It is probably several, chemicals that say you are full or have enough fat. Leptin, the hormone released by fat cells is certainly one of them. A 2014 study in obese mice with leptin deficiency or leptin resistance proved this. The primary cilia on POMC neurons in hypothalamus are short in these mice due to lack of leptin signaling, and therefore they don’t work well and don’t stimulate alpha-MSH release.

So, here we have a miniscule part of your neurons cells that, if not exactly the needed length, can take away your intelligence AND your beach-ready physique. But it gets worse.

Many of these same ciliopathies(disease of cilia function) are also associated with clinical depression. The problem is, we don’t know how they lead to depression. Depression is often thought to be a problem of serotonin signaling in the brain, but it can be multifactorial. Here’s one interesting result though – lithium lengthens primary cilia.

Lithium is used to treat depression, and we don’t yet really know why it works. But lithium also increases the length of primary cilia in many cell types of the brain. Considering that many depressed people gain weight, could depression and compulsive eating be linked by primary cilia length? Lithium treats them both. This could explain why people coming out of depressive episodes often lose weight.

The popular soft drink &-Up contained lithium citrate
until 1950. It is used as a mood stabilizer now, and we
know it promotes weight gain, but here they advertize it
as slenderizing. The name, 7-Up, is a mystery, but the
atomic mass of lithium is seven - hmmm.

Sounds like we’re really on to something here. People who are treated for depression and get better often lose weight. Is it because they a) feel better and then do more activity, or is it because 2) their POMC primary cilia are longer and this suppresses their appetite?

No way for number two. Biology is never that simple. It turns out that one of the major side effects of lithium treatment for mood stabilization is weight gain. It has to do with lithium affecting the function of the thyroid gland, this being one of the major regulators of your metabolism. Your metabolism slows down and you gain weight.

Maybe if we just inject the lithium into the brain ventricles…. You want to volunteer for that weight loss program?

Next week, how can primary cilia control whether mankind ever gets to step foot on Mars or help the Enterprise on its five year mission to seek out new worlds? By controlling bones….. no, not Bones McCoy, just bones.




Tong, C., Han, Y., Shah, J., Obernier, K., Guinto, C., & Alvarez-Buylla, A. (2014). Primary cilia are required in a unique subpopulation of neural progenitors Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (34), 12438-12443 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1321425111

Han, Y., Kang, G., Byun, K., Ko, H., Kim, J., Shin, M., Kim, H., Gil, S., Yu, J., Lee, B., & Kim, M. (2014). Leptin-promoted cilia assembly is critical for normal energy balance Journal of Clinical Investigation, 124 (5), 2193-2197 DOI: 10.1172/JCI69395

Davenport JR, Watts AJ, Roper VC, Croyle MJ, van Groen T, Wyss JM, Nagy TR, Kesterson RA, & Yoder BK (2007). Disruption of intraflagellar transport in adult mice leads to obesity and slow-onset cystic kidney disease. Current biology : CB, 17 (18), 1586-94 PMID: 17825558

Keryer, G., Pineda, J., Liot, G., Kim, J., Dietrich, P., Benstaali, C., Smith, K., Cordelières, F., Spassky, N., Ferrante, R., Dragatsis, I., & Saudou, F. (2011). Ciliogenesis is regulated by a huntingtin-HAP1-PCM1 pathway and is altered in Huntington disease Journal of Clinical Investigation, 121 (11), 4372-4382 DOI: 10.1172/JCI57552

Miyoshi, K., Kasahara, K., Miyazaki, I., & Asanuma, M. (2009). Lithium treatment elongates primary cilia in the mouse brain and in cultured cells Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 388 (4), 757-762 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.08.099




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Ventricular System –

Huntington’s disease –

POMC –

Lithium -




Space – It’ll Mess You Up

$
0
0

Biology concepts –  undulipodia, primary cilia, motile cilia, ependyma, spaceflight, pathology, osteopenia, radiation damage, osteoblast/osteoclast, osteocytes,


No one wanted the elation of the moon visit to
turn to disaster as a moon germ spread through-
out the world and killed every living thing. So
they moved the astronauts from splashdown to
airstream. What a bummer that would have
been to go all Andromeda Strain…. although it
might have saved us from Watergate.
Going into space is an engineering triumph, but it isn’t without its biologic difficulties. When the Apollo 11 astronauts returned from the first visit to the moon, Richard Nixon had to congratulate them through the window of their mobile quarantine van.

Exposing humans to space germs would be bad, but the problems go the other way too. Astronauts have to deal with many changes to their body due to the reductions in sunlight, exercise, circadian rhythm, and perhaps most of all – gravity. You’d be surprised how much microgravity (in space there is still a little gravity) can mess with your body – and alot of it has to do with some of the smallest parts of your cells – the primary cilia.

In fact, a 2004 study showed changes in human gene expression during regular gravitational field changes due to sun and moon right here on Earth. If the small changes in Earth's gravity brought about by the changing position of the Sun and Moon can have measureable effects, imagine how big a deal going into space must be. A 2008 study on Rohon-Beard cells (developmental neurons in fish and amphibians) showed that they lost primary cilia when in microgravity. So gravity matters, and it matters in part because of what it does to primary cilia.

Life on Earth has evolved in gravity. Our bodies have come to expect a pull to the center of the Earth and for all the air of the atmosphere above them to be pressing down on them. These forces must have molded our anatomy and biochemistry to some degree. So if you take us off the Earth, shouldn’t we expect some problems?

Microgravity alters the responses of the body. Processes are lost and balances are shifted. Problems caused by these changes can manifest in two ways; 1) they could cause problems while in space, or 2) they could cause problems when the astronauts return to normal gravity.


Even though the uniforms look Russian, this
footage comes from the US Air Force film
archive. They were in a C-131 doing parabolic
arcs that would provide 15 seconds of
weightlessness. The idea was to see if cats in
space could land on their feet. It turns out they
can only do it if they know which way is down.
I think the ASPCA might have a thing or two to
say about this.
So what are some of the problems associated with long term spaceflight, and how might your primary, immotile, cilia be involved? While some might be considered pathologies, others are merely adjustments that the body makes according to its own regulatory systems. Sometimes, those adjustments then produce unwanted results.

Muscles and Blood Cells
Reduced gravity means that certain parts of the body don’t get stressed. Muscles pull against resistance; no resistance means no work for the muscles. Think about pushing off the walls of the International Space Station (ISS) while floating around. The necessary force is greatly reduced, so the muscle doesn’t get worked. When muscles don’t get exercise they atrophy(a = no, and trophy = food), like the legs of paraplegics.


A 2010 study confirmed that spaceflight has an affect on muscle fibers. The soleus muscle of the back of the leg lost 20% of its fibers over a 180 day mission on the ISS. Peak force was lower by 35%. The types of fibers were different as well, switching mostly to weaker thin fibers. Exercise made a little difference, but if the astronauts were asked to move a bed soon after landing, they’d have to call Two Guys and a Truck.
Your heart is a muscle; the heart does less work in space too, mostly because it can pump easier and still move the same volume of blood. We can’t say that primary cilia aren’t involved in these muscular and cardiovascular adaptations, we just don’t have evidence for it yet.

In similar fashion, it’s possible that primary cilia aren’t involved in the decreased red blood cell production during spaceflight. A 2000 study shows that blood volume is decreased in space, and this triggers lysis (popping) of the youngest red blood cells (neocytolysis).

On the other hand, immune cell function (white blood cells) rather than number is decreased in space. Astronauts are very prone to infections when they return to Earth, and sometimes even in space. A 2012 study showed that a significant percentage of astronauts manifest viral, bacterial, and fungal infections.


The immune synapse is mediated by the
presenting of an antigen by one cell to activate
another cell. Many receptors and co-receptors
are involved, and apparently putting them all in
the right place requires IFT proteins. The bottom
image shows the large synapse between a
dendritic cell (blue) and  a T cell (yellow).
Defects in blood cell function in space lead us to a big exception. Blood cells are some of the few cells that don’t have primary cilia. It probably has something to do with the fact that they circulate; their shape is important for their movement through vessels.

However, immune cells still express IFT proteins. We learned previously that IFT proteins mediate the building and the function of both motile and immotile cilia. A 2011 study suggests that the gap between the immune cell that presents a foreign body (antigen presenting cell) and the immune cell that will react to it (often a T lymphocyte), is controlled by IFT proteins. The hypothesis is that this immune synapse (synapse is Greek for join together) is the functional equivalent of the primary cilium for immune cells. Primary cilia are important even when they aren’t there.

Bones
Extended spaceflight wreaks havoc on your skeleton. The reason is that your bones need gravity to keep them growing. Yep, your bones are always growing, ….of course they’re always breaking down too.

Bones are dynamic. Osteoblasts(osteo = bone, and blast = germ) build new mineralized bone, while osteoclasts (clast = breaker) consume bone. As a result, you basically have a completely new skeleton every seven years, every two years if you're a child. Why is this necessary? Because bones are constantly responding to changes.

Consider weight lifting - the pulling of muscles on the bones to which they are attached stimulates osteoblast and osteoclast activity. Growing muscles are bigger, which means they need bigger attachments to bone. To accommodate this growth, the bones have to remodel themselves; more bone here, less there.


The left micrograph shows the difference between
osteocytes and osteoblasts. The –cytes are in the
lacunae while the –blasts are on the edge of the
matrix. The right image shows a lacuna and the
canaliculi connected to it. The osteocyte with its
primary cilium is in the lacuna. Mechanical loading
moves the fluid in the canaliculi and bends the cilium.
The growth of bone is mediated by the osteoblasts, which exude a dense form of collagen and some bone-specific proteins. This matrix becomes impregnated with calcium to become mineralized bone. Osteoblasts become trapped inside the matrix they lay down, surrounded by a small fluid-filled cavity called a lacuna. All the lacunae are connected by long fluid-filled tubes called canaliculi. This creates a huge network of osteocytes (ie. what osteoblasts are called when they are trapped in a lacuna).

Gravity and other forms of mechanical loading (putting weight or pressure on the bone) affects these osteocytes. Just walking on Earth is a source of mechanical loading on bone. The force produces a signal from the osteocytes to the osteoblasts to lay down more bone. A 2104 study has developed a model system to define how osteocytes signal osteoblasts, but we already know some things.

Like squeezing one of those worry dolls whose eyes bug out, mechanical stress on the lacunae brings movement of the fluid in the canaliculi and the lacunar network. This bends the primary cilia of the osteocytes trapped in the lacunae and triggers the signal that the bone is under a load.

The response to loading is a release hormones and other molecules that both stimulate osteoblast activity and call for the differentiation of bone stem cells to become osteoblasts. Osteoclasts are sill doing their job of dissolving bone matrix, but the stimulation of osteoblasts in the loaded area tips the balance to more bone formation in that area.


NASA and other space agencies try to fend off some
of the space changes in physiology by having the
astronauts exercise in space. It doesn’t work for
muscle, and not much for bone. Usually it works
better if they strap the astronauts down to simulate
some gravity.
In space, there is much less loading of the bones. Walking doesn’t have gravity to deal with, and muscles have to work so little because there is little pushing against them. The net result is that there is less shear stress in the bone lacunar network and therefore less bending of the primary cilia. Therefore, the pendulum swings toward osteoclast activity and results in osteopenia (penia = poverty).

The astronauts don’thave osteoporosis. Osteopenia and osteoprosis are two different things. Osteopenia means less bone production, but the bone that is produced is densely mineralized. Osteoporosis results from adequate bone formation but poor mineralization of that bone.

Osteoporosis is caused by many other things, and can be bad – but not as bad as space osteopenia. An astronaut can lose 10x as much bone as an osteoporosis patient in just a six-month stay in space. You go into space as a virile astronaut and come back as frail as your great grandmother.

Balance
We learned last week about the role of primary cilia in the vestibular system (balance). The semicircular canals in our inner ear track rotation in space, but the utricleand saccule sense gravity and acceleration in a straight line. These otlithic organs use otoconia - little mineralized bits on the ends of sterocilia on hair cells to detect movement and gravity.


The semicircular canals are for rotational changes
and have the cupula to mediate movement. The
utricle and saccule are for gravity responses. The
macula of each is the region where the otoconia
mediate the movement of the hairs in response to
changes in their position relative to gravity.
Two recent studies suggest that primary cilia mediate balance problems in astronauts. First, a 2014 study shows that otolithic organ function is reduced in patients with primary cilia diseases and that at least one reason for this is that they have malformations of the otoconia. Second, microgravity leads to larger than normal otoconia and affects primary cilia function according to a 2000 study. For astronauts, this would be a reactive adaptation, becoming a problem only when normal gravity is re-established. The adaptation is O.K. as long as you remain in space forever. Problem solved.

Radiation
Ionizing radiation is a big problem in space. The atmosphere and ozone layer that protect Earth life from much of the radiation that could damage our DNA. Besides creating mutations in DNA, the radiation of space can mess with primary cilia.

Usually solitary structures on vertebrate cells, ionizing radiation can change primary cilia number. A 2012 study showed that after radiation exposure, some cells had multiple primary cilia. These all came from the same ciliary pocket, and were probably due to aberrant basal bodyformation. Surely this is going to mess with any affected cell’s function, considering how important primary cilia are for sensing the cell’s immediate environment.

Next week, we should take a look at ourselves in the mirror. Animals may look symmetric, but it's more complicated. Do we have a head to lead our body, or did our evolution of our body give us a reason to have a head?



Finetti, F., Paccani, S., Rosenbaum, J., & Baldari, C. (2011). Intraflagellar transport: a new player at the immune synapse Trends in Immunology, 32 (4), 139-145 DOI: 10.1016/j.it.2011.02.001

Conroy, P., Saladino, C., Dantas, T., Lalor, P., Dockery, P., & Morrison, C. (2014). C-NAP1 and rootletin restrain DNA damage-induced centriole splitting and facilitate ciliogenesis Cell Cycle, 11 (20), 3769-3778 DOI: 10.4161/cc.21986

Troshichev, O., Gorshkov, E., Shapovalov, S., Sokolovskii, V., Ivanov, V., & Vorobeitchikov, V. (2004). Variations of the gravitational field as a motive power for rhythmics of biochemical processes Advances in Space Research, 34 (7), 1619-1624 DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2004.02.013

Fitts, R., Trappe, S., Costill, D., Gallagher, P., Creer, A., Colloton, P., Peters, J., Romatowski, J., Bain, J., & Riley, D. (2010). Prolonged space flight-induced alterations in the structure and function of human skeletal muscle fibres The Journal of Physiology, 588 (18), 3567-3592 DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2010.188508

Rimmer J, Patel M, Agarwal K, Hogg C, Arshad Q, & Harcourt J (2014). Peripheral Vestibular Dysfunction in Patients with Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia: Abnormal Otoconial Development? Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology PMID: 25226371


For more information or classroom activities, see:

Bone –

Space travel and the body –

Vestibular sense -

Mirroring Evolution

$
0
0

Biology concepts – bilateral symmetry, radial symmetry, planulozoa hypothesis, cephalization, last animal common ancestor, porifera, platyhelminth, cnidarian, echinodermata


Halloween was a classic slasher film. Jamie Lee
Curtis looks so young, decades before Freaky
Friday or yogurt commercials. Michael Myers
could cut a man in half with his machete, but
could he produce two mirror image halves?
Slasher movies have been around for years. The heyday of the knife-wielding madman was in the 1970’s-1980’s with films like Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Even today we have examples, like American Horror Show, both the Asylum and the Freak Show seasons. The common theme to the movies is often someone getting something cut off or basically halved right in front of the audience.

But how many ways can you be cut in half? Top to bottom is one way, leaving you with your head attached to one half and your feet attached to the other. Or you could be cleaved through your ears and down through your body. Then you would have your nose attached to one half and your bum attached to the other.

However, there’s only one way to slice you that will give two mirror images, each with the same components. If Chucky happens to catch you through the top of your head, down through your nose and straight down to where your legs split, each half will have one eye, one arm, one leg, one ear. This can only occur because you are bilaterally symmetric. Most animals (about 99%) have bilaterally symmetric bodies, so we have to at least consider the possibility that this provides some sort of advantage.


Cnidarians like jellyfish have radial symmetry,
but not spherical. You still have to cut them in
half from top to bottom through the center. When
some move on their own, instead of floating, they
move like bilaterally symmetric animals – could
this have been the start of bilateral symmetry?
But not all animals are bilaterally symmetric, especially those that diverged earliest from the last animal common ancestor (LACA). Cnidarians (jellyfish, corals, sea anemones) are a phylum of organisms that diverged fairly early and show radial symmetry. This means that anywhere Michael Myers slashed them from top to bottom and through the center, he would alwaysproduce two mirror image halves.

If bilateral symmetry is advantageous, why are jellyfish still radial? Because it works for them; no pressure/ random mutation combination sent them on that path. Remember, evolution doesn’t have a plan, it is neither reactive nor proactive. Random mutations are always occurring, and sometimes a change in environment makes renders a random mutation advantageous. It’s simply hit or miss. If the mutation or the pressure occurred at some other time, they would miss each other.

Radially symmetric animals tend to be sessile (non-moving), free-floating, or very slow movers. They don’t chase prey down, so they don’t need to be fast. This is the advantage of bilateral symmetry; it coordinates movements so that an animal can move in a particular direction faster. In fact, one 2102 paper puts forth the idea that maneuverability is the main reason for the maintenance of bilateral symmetry in animals.

However, fast movement wouldn’t be much use if you didn’t know where you were going. This is why bilateral animals also have a head. A head is a place to store your sensory apparatus and your neural tissue to process those sensory inputs. You think its an accident that our brain is located the same place as our eyes, ears, nose, and mouth?

Slow or sessile animals (like cnidarians) that filter feed or catch what runs into them have no head. They have few sensory neurons, and only loosely associated ganglia of neural tissues spread throughout their bodies.


Humans decided to become bipedal (two footed)
and this made it hard for us to lead
the way with our head. Our foramen magnum
(hole where spine emerges) moved down and
below our skull to support the weight of our head
and keep our sensory organs pointed in
the right direction.
But if you’re going to have a head to sense the environment and help you move well in one direction – where should you put it? At the front of course. Bilateral animals also evolved to have an anterior and posterior end – the anterior end being the direction that they move. And this is where we find their head.

Bilateral animals have a head, and radial animals don’t have a head. This sounds like a fairly plain story – as animals diverged and evolved, some developed a head and became bilateral. Or..... did they become bilateral and then develop a head? Maybe the animals can tell us which way it was.

The flatworms (platyhelminthes) were the first divergence of animals to have their neural ganglia clustered in their anterior end. Going along with this, they have sensory systems located at that end too. They have eyespots, although they are really just patches that detect light or dark.


Platyhelminthes have a define head ganglion of
nerves and have started develop more senses at
the anterior end; see the sensors that stick up.
And they move faster and in a straight line. They
are headed, and headed in a particular direction.
Platyhelminthes have mechanosensors to know if they touch something, and they have chemical sensors to sample the water in front of them. That sounds a lot like our eyes, mouth, nose, and sense of touch. Since these are all at that anterior end, I call that a head. The worms are longer than they are wide, and they move primarily in one direction letting their head lead the way.

So we have gone from animals with no head and radial symmetry to animals with a head and bilateral symmetry. This doesn’t help answer the question of which came first. Aren't there any animals in between?

Yes, there are, and they give us a little bit of a clue as to which came first. The ctenophora (pronounced "ten", cteno = comb and phora = bearing) is a phylum of animals that lie between the cnidarians and the platyhelminthes. Ctenophoran animals are the comb jellies. Both cnidarians and comb jellies have been around for over 500 million years, so they’ve had time to settle in to a niche.

The comb jellies look round at first glance, but their architecture is a bit more complex than the cnidarian jellyfish. They have internal and external features that allow only for two planes of symmetry that give mirror images (see picture). These especially include the combs, rows of fused cilia that line their sides, and the fact that they don’t have stinging cells (cnidocytes). Remember that ONLY cnidarians have cnidocytes.


Here is a cladogram that shows the divergence of
each phylum of animal from their last common
ancestor. Ctenophores and cnidarians diverged from
each other recently (or did they, see article). Starfish
diverged after everyone else on that end was
bilateral, yet they are radial as adults. What gives?
Just as the ctenophora lie between the radial cnidarians and the bilateral flatworms, their symmetry lies in the middle as well. Two planes (bi) in an otherwise radial animal = biradial symmetry.

A 2004 study investigated the relationships between biradial and bilateral animals in evolution. If biradial is the link between radial and bilateral, then would seem to suggest that bilateralism occurred before cephalization.  Called the Planulozoa Hypothesis, the authors suggests that ctenophora are the sister clade of bilateralians, and that all three of the groups – cnidarians, ctenophora and bilaterals – are the descendents of a single bilateral ancestor.

Ctenophora larvae have bilateral features, so this supports the planulozoa hypothesis (the free swimming larvae of all three phyla are called planulae). This would then suggest that cnidarians were once bilateral and then returned to radial symmetry.

Additionally, the if the planulozoa hypothesis holds, then bilateralism would seem to predate cephalization (development of a head). The larvae of ctenophores and some ctenophore features show that a move to true bilateral symmetry came before platyhelminthes and the emergence of a head. The conclusion – the streamlined body came before the head. But that confuses me, one isn’t much good without the other.


Ctenophores – the comb jellies, often show
bioluminescence. They only have two perpendicular
planes of mirror image symmetry. You can see the
fused cilia that form the combs on each ridge.
Wait a minute, there’s a fly in the bouillabaisse. Ctenophores have a nervous system that is more complex than many other animals – it’s just not centralized to a head. Centralizing the nervous system, with the sensory processing and muscular control, is a crucial part of cephalization. They seem to developed a strong neural system without adding the head itself.

A 2014 study of the genome of several ctenophores showed that they do not have the same neuron-building gene regulation pathways as any other phylum of animals, and they only use one of the most common neurotransmitters; all their other neuron signalling molecules are unique to ctenophores alone. This suggests that they evolved radically differently than the phylums around them, cnidarians and flatworms. This does not support the planulozoa hypothesis at all. Ctenophores may have developed all on their own and therefore can't help us answer the question of which cam first the bilateral body or the head.

Other things about symmetry development make you say, “Huh?” as well. Look at that same cladogram of animals above – see the right side where the sea star is located? What’s a radially symmetric animal doing way over there after everyone else switched to bilateral symmetry?

The echinodermata(sea stars, brittle stars, sea cucumbers; echino= spiny, and derm = skin) also support the planulozoa hypothesis, since they seem to have undergone the same regression as the cnidarians. Echinoderms include the brittle stars, sea stars, sea cucumbers, barnacles and sea urchins. They have bilateral symmetry as larvae, but many of them become radial (pentaradial or such, depending on the number of arms) when they become adults.

Secondary radial symmetryis term for when a bilateral larva becomes a radial adult; but it is more interesting than that. The easy way for that transformation to occur would be for the arms to grow out of the larva, with the top (aboral) and mouth (oral) sides remaining the same. But that’s not how it happens.


The brittle star, an echinoderm, walks like bilateral
animal, even though it assumes pentaradial symmetry
as an adult. One arm acts as the head, and two arms
on each side work as mirror images. When it wants to
turn, it just assigns another arm to be the head.
The swimming larva becomes sessile by attaching itself to something on the sea floor. Then one mirror image side (right or left) becomes the oral side, while the other half become the aboral side of the adult. To do this, all the arms must grow from one half, and many tissues and organs are actually lost from the larva when it becomes an adult. This seems like a lot of work just to go backward in evolution.

But like I say, it works for them. The adult sea stars and other echinoderms are fairly slow. Their lifestyle doesn’t require a head or a bilateral body, so they went biologically simpler and energetically cheaper and returned to radial symmetry. All the mechanics were still in their genomes - it was really pretty smart.

However much they have tried to regress as adults, the brittle stars seemed to have retained at least a little bilateral activity. The way they move is a lot like a bilateral animal, according to a 2012 study. One arm points forward, the direction they are traveling. The arms on either side then push the animal along, like a crawling bilateral animal. I guess you can’t completely go home again.

Next week – Bilateral animals are simple - just two mirror images, right? Well no. You won’t believe the number of complex animals that break symmetry in order to give them a unique shape or function.




Moroz, L., Kocot, K., Citarella, M., Dosung, S., Norekian, T., Povolotskaya, I., Grigorenko, A., Dailey, C., Berezikov, E., Buckley, K., Ptitsyn, A., Reshetov, D., Mukherjee, K., Moroz, T., Bobkova, Y., Yu, F., Kapitonov, V., Jurka, J., Bobkov, Y., Swore, J., Girardo, D., Fodor, A., Gusev, F., Sanford, R., Bruders, R., Kittler, E., Mills, C., Rast, J., Derelle, R., Solovyev, V., Kondrashov, F., Swalla, B., Sweedler, J., Rogaev, E., Halanych, K., & Kohn, A. (2014). The ctenophore genome and the evolutionary origins of neural systems Nature, 510 (7503), 109-114 DOI: 10.1038/nature13400

Holló, G., & Novák, M. (2012). The manoeuvrability hypothesis to explain the maintenance of bilateral symmetry in animal evolution Biology Direct, 7 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1745-6150-7-22

Wallberg, A., Thollesson, M., Farris, J., & Jondelius, U. (2004). The phylogenetic position of the comb jellies (Ctenophora) and the importance of taxonomic sampling Cladistics, 20 (6), 558-578 DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004.00041.x

Astley HC (2012). Getting around when you're round: quantitative analysis of the locomotion of the blunt-spined brittle star, Ophiocoma echinata. The Journal of experimental biology, 215 (Pt 11), 1923-9 PMID: 22573771





For more information or classroom activities, see:

Biologic symmetry –

Ctenophora vs .cnidarians –

Echinoderms -



Looking Sideways In The Mirror

$
0
0
Biology Concepts – platyhelminthes, asymmetry, bilateral symmetry, evolution, cephalization, natural selection, fish, lepidophagy

What is the largest living structure on Earth? No, it’s not the 2200 acre Armillaria ostoyae fungus in Oregon that we talked about previously. That is the largest single organism, but there is something bigger.

The Great Barrier Reef houses more species of
coral than any other place on earth, more than 600
species call the reef home. You see how many shapes
they can take. Does this mean they are
asymmetric animals?
The Great Barrier Reef off the northeast coast of Australia is alive. Reefs are made of the exoskeletons of coral polyps, with the new corals growing next to and on top of the older ones. With all the nooks and crannies available, coral reefs are some of the most diverse ecosystems on Earth, with thousands of species per square mile.

This can add up quickly, because the Great Barrier Reef is more than 132,973 sq. miles (344,400 sq. km) in area. And if you still don’t believe it is a living structure, get this; it’s moving south! Climate change is warming the waters off the coast, and corals and tropical fish are moving south with the warmer temperature. Meanwhile, the northern edge recedes as the waters get too hot for corals.

Corals take all sorts of shapes (see picture above), and despite what we talked about last week, they don’t seem to be either bilaterally or radial symmetric. Sure, brain corals look radial, but most corals don’t have a repetitive shape. Are these asymmetric animals?

Nope - remember that the coral you see is the exoskeleton of the polyp, not the animal itself. Just because the apartment building isn’t symmetric, it doesn’t mean the animal is as well. Coral polyps are definitely radially symmetric, so our discussion of last week still holds.

Corals and other radial animals are exceptions, since 99% of animals are actually bilaterally symmetric. But there are exceptions with the bilateral animals as well. Some species that have been bilateral for millions of years then evolved a tweak to the system. Some part them became asymmetric in order to give them an advantage. Their stories are exceptional and we should explore some of them.

Coral polyps are cnidarian animals. They live inside
the calcium shells they produce, and it is the shells
that seem asymmetric in many cases. But the polyps
show radial symmetry. Each stalk and white “flower”
is an individual polyp.
But we begin with a challenge –as we discuss the different animals that break symmetry in the next few posts, see if you can find something else that is common to many of them.

Let’s start with the first animals that became bilaterally symmetric– the platyhelminthes, or flatworms. Most flatworms are small, just barely visible with the human eye, and most swim in the water. There are free-living versions and parasitic species and it is in the parasites that we find our first animal that has decided that completely bilateral isn’t necessary.

Polyopsithocotylea monogenea is a group of flatworms that live on and feed on fish gills. About 0.05-1 mm long, these platyhelminthes attach themselves to one of the gill ridges and take up residence there for life. The attachment they use is called a haptor, and they come in different shapes and sizes.

The oncomiracidium stage of the worm is directly after the egg stage and before it becomes an adult. This stage is completely bilaterally symmetric. But when the adult stage is reached and it’s time to settle down and starting feeding on some fish’s gills, they become asymmetric via their haptor attachment.

Opisthaptors, or just haptors, are the attachment
organs for many parasites, including parasitic
flatworms. They can use suckers or clamps and hooks
in order to anchor the worm in its preferred habitat.
You can see that these haptors maintain animal
symmetry, but not all do.
Different host species fish have different gill anatomy, so the attachment point and position will be different. The haptor(s) have to be located where attachment is possible. This means that they may be on one side of the body or the other, or two on one side and one on the other, etc.

The initial haptor is usually located on the posterior end, on one side only. So much for bilateral symmetry. In some species this haptor has suckers, in others it has hard clamps, and yet other species have both.

As the adult grows, more haptors may develop, just where the animal touches the gill. Some may have 50 or more haptors arranged around their posterior, becoming more and more asymmetric. But there is a plan, they only grow where attachment is possible; some signal is generated by contact and this stimulates growth of more attachments.

Here we have a family of parasitic worms that aren’t symmetric living within a phylum of worms that were the first to be bilaterally symmetric - exceptional. But, take one step up the chain and you see the fish they live on. It just so happens that at least one group of fish parasitized by P. monogean worms are asymmetric themselves.

These are the profiles of some monogean flatworms. The
haptors of these parasites grown in odd places and
destroy the bilateral symmetry of the animal. But it is
necessary for the worm to attach to the gills of their
prey fish.
Cichlid fish are one of the most diverse family of animals known, with more than 1700 known species. They are found in the Old World and the New. They exhibit some amazing adaptations, especially when many are found in one place, Lake Tanganyika on the border of Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The cichlids are successful because different species have developed different feeding niches, and this is where we meet our asymmetric cichlids – they eat the scales off other fish! One genus, Perissodus, has at least six species that eat scales, all endemic to Lake Tangayiki (although there are also other scale eaters in other locations).

Scale ripping and eating is called lepidophagy (lepido = scale, and phagy = eat). Scales are an unexpectedly good source of nutrition. They chock full of protein and calcium phosphate, and their attachments are both cartilaginous, fatty, and come with some carbohydrate. Remember that the next time you order fish in a fancy restaurant. Tell the chef not to scale it – you’ll be quite the topic of conversation in the kitchen.

Fish scales have many uses. Some, especially from
herrings, are used to make the pearlescent cosmetics
that are sold today. Gals, your putting fish scales on your
eyes and lips. Fish scales can also be turned into artificial
bone, or they can be food for lepidophageous fish.
Mind you, this isn’t eating the scales of dead fish, or eating the scales that drop off live fish. Lepidophagy means eating the scales that are still attached to live fish. It’s a fish smorgasbord. This is both good and bad. Scales on live fish grow back fast, so there is always a ready supply of food.

But, you can imagine that the fish being unfrocked don’t appreciate it very much and fight back or swim away quickly. That doesn’t even take into account how hard it is to bite the scales off a swimming fish. Therefore, lepidophages must evolve anatomies and behaviors that give them a chance to succeed. Or perhaps it would be better to say, they acquired characteristics that made being a lepidophage an advantage.

Here are two P. microlepis scale eating fish. One is right
mouthed and the other is left mouthed. You can see how
the way their mouth develops breaks their bilateral
symmetry. The right-mouthed version (on the left) will
only eat scales from the left side of fish. How is it that both
versions can be maintained in a population?
The species P. microlepis has developed one particularly amazing way to help it eat the scales off of neighbor fish. It’s mouth and jaws have evolved so that they bend sideways. There are right-mouthed P. microlepis and left-mouthed individuals. The difference is obvious, right-mouthed individuals will feed only from the left side of their prey and vice versa. They have an asymmetry, or lateralization, of both anatomy and behavior

A 2012 video study showed that right-mouthed individuals almost always attack prey from the left, and their strikes are more powerful and successful when coming from the preferred side. One could ask, why are their both types? How did right- and left-mouthed individuals come to evolve and why are there still both types?

A different 2012 study shows that juveniles prefer one side or the other, even before their mouth bend has become pronounced, so it is a deeply penetrating characteristic, both heritable and perhaps partially acquired. There’s evolution and genetics at work here.

The prevailing model is that at any one time, right or left-mouthed individuals will predominate in a population. Let’s say that right now, right-mouthed feeders are the majority. The prey fish will learn to pay more attention to their left side, as this side is more vulnerable.

This makes it harder for right-mouthed individuals to feed, but easier for left-mouthed fish, because the prey fish ignore their right side relative to the left. In time, the right-mouthed individuals breed less well and the numbers in the population will shift. The left-mouthed feeders will become the majority. This is an example of negative frequency-dependent selection, where as a trait becomes more common it becomes less advantageous, and there is a balancing selection.

The flu virus comes with one of many hemagglutin proteins
and one of many neuraminidase proteins. If one genetic
version is too successful, most people will develop
immunity to it and it becomes less fit in the population of
hosts. Its success is its downfall and a more rare version
will rise up. This is negative frequency-dependent selection.
The cycle will begin again after left-mouthed individuals come to dominant in the population. Back and forth the population will go. If the population stayed 50/50, nobody would gain an advantage, and overall, they would all suffer. The system only works if a small number develop opposite to the majority. The gene regulatory complex that controls if an individual will be right- or left-mouthed must be very complex if it can take into account that a few need to be lateralized the other way.

However, a 2012 study throws this into question. They found equal distributions of right-and left mouthed individuals in five populations they studied. Also, left-mouthed and right-mouthed individuals mated with each other just as often as they mate with same-sided individuals (called disassortative mating). Perhaps the mouth bend is not a true dimorphism (di= two, and morph = shape).

Or, as a 2008 study suggests, negative frequency-dependent selection works best when there is disassortative mating. This may be necessary since a 2007 study showed that lefty:lefty matings give 2:1 lefty offspring, right:lefty mates give equal righty and lefty offspring, but righty:righty pairs ONLY give righty kids. Figure out the genetics of that. The authors proposed two possibilities – mendelian genetics with lefty being dominant and dominant homozygous being lethal, orcross-incompatibility that is predominant in lefty:lefty homozygotes, (meaning lefty homozygotes can’t mate successfully mate with the other types).

Today we have seen a swimming flatworm that feeds on some fish, and some fish that feed on the scales of other fish. And both of them achieve this only because they have adapted their bilateral symmetry to become just a bit asymmetric.

Next week, there are other animals that break symmetry to survive. Flatfish lay on their sides at the bottom of lakes and oceans, yet they still use binocular vision. How can that be?



Takeuchi, Y., Hori, M., & Oda, Y. (2012). Lateralized Kinematics of Predation Behavior in a Lake Tanganyika Scale-Eating Cichlid Fish PLoS ONE, 7 (1) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029272

Lee, H., Kusche, H., & Meyer, A. (2012). Handed Foraging Behavior in Scale-Eating Cichlid Fish: Its Potential Role in Shaping Morphological Asymmetry PLoS ONE, 7 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044670

Kusche, H., Lee, H., & Meyer, A. (2012). Mouth asymmetry in the textbook example of scale-eating cichlid fish is not a discrete dimorphism after all Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279 (1748), 4715-4723 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2082

Takahashi, T., & Hori, M. (2008). Evidence of disassortative mating in a Tanganyikan cichlid fish and its role in the maintenance of intrapopulation dimorphism Biology Letters, 4 (5), 497-499 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0244

Hori, M., Ochi, H., & Kohda, M. (2007). Inheritance Pattern of Lateral Dimorphism in Two Cichlids (a Scale Eater, Perissodus microlepis, and an Herbivore, Neolamprologus moorii) in Lake Tanganyika Zoological Science, 24 (5), 486-492 DOI: 10.2108/zsj.24.486



For more information or classroom activities, see:

Great Barrier Reef –

Coral polyps –

Cichlids –

The Eyes Have It

$
0
0
Biology concepts – asymmetry, lateral polymorphism, flatfish, evolution, copepod, ecology, niche



Ray Harryhausen was the most famous of the stop
motion artists in the movies. This version of the
Cyclops was his creation for the 1958 movie, The 7th
Voyage of Sinbad. I can’t see how the Cyclops could
catch anything with just the one eye – he had no
depth perception.
We have been talking about bilateral symmetry in the past few weeks, and this would include having two eyes, one on each half of your face. Two eyes must be a pretty important evolutionary adaptation; can you think of an animal that has just one eye – other than a cyclops, that is? (the answer is somewhere in post) Some protists have a single eyespot for sensing light – but they aren’t animals.

Predators need to catch their food, so they need depth perception. For this you need two overlapping images. You don’t do the math consciously, but your brain uses the differences in each image to tell you how far away the target prey is. To get two images simultaneously, you need both eyes to be on the front of your face.

Prey animals, usually herbivores, have to worry about being chased down by a predator. Prey animals are usually quick, but they need clues to get a good start before the predator gets too close. Their eyes are designed to pick up motion; it doesn’t matter how far away it is. If something moves in their line of sight, they assume it’s a predator and they bolt. By having their eyes on the sides of their head, they have a maximal range of vision which gives them the best chance to see that lioness coming.

Just to show you how important evolution thinks it is to have at least two eyes, let’s discuss a group of animals that have found a way to make two drastic changes work for them. Flatfishhave evolved to lie on their side, but they’re predators so they can’t afford to have one eye constantly seeing nothing but the sandy ocean bottom. Consequently, they have moved one eye to the other side of their head!


This is a winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
americanus). Notice how it blends in to the floor. It
does more by flapping and tossing sand on its back.
The mouth points up when the fish is vertical, so the
left most eye is the one that migrated. Makes sense,
you wouldn’t want to move an eye under your chin –
that would be silly.
Flatfish are all from the order Pleuronectiformes (pleuro = toward the side), sometimes called the Heterosomata (hetero = differently, and soma = bodied). There are some 715 species of flatfish in 11 families, and they include the turbots, sole, flounder, plaice, and halibut. They are all predators that lie in wait on the ocean-, lake-, sea-, or riverbed. But they don’t start out that way.

All the Pleuronectifromesstart out as fry that swim upright. Their top is at the top, and the bottom is toward the bottom. They live nearer the top of the water than the bottom, have pigment coloration on both sides of their body, and feed on phyto- and zooplankton. But the surface isn’t the safest place to live; bigger fish are always around to eat the small fry.

So, as they start to develop into adults, many changes take place. They swim down to the floor of whatever body of water they call home. One eye starts to move! It travels over the top of their head and onto the other side, like the Mr. Potato Head of some deranged child.

As you can imagine, moving an eye isn’t an easy thing to do. Their brain has to move, as do the cranial and facial bones. Their mouth has to make room for the eye coming its way. All in all, it’s a tough piece of work.


The top image is the visible side of a rock sole, the
bottom image is the lower side of the same fish. As the
fish matures and lies on its side, the coloring changes.
Pigments are energetically expensive to make, so why
waste them. The middle image shows the line where it
goes from pigmented to unpigmented. What control!
Moving an eye from one side of the head to the other seems illogical, why not just develop with both eyes on one side, or make do with one eye? Creationists have used the flatfishes as an argument against evolution. We have fish with eyes on each side of their head, and fish with both eyes on one side of their head. They argued that if natural selection was responsible for the change in flatfish, there should be fossils or fish that are intermediates.

Well, there are evolutionary intermediates – even some living examples. A paper in 2008 introduced us to two extinct species of flatfish. In each (Amphisitium and Heteronectes), one eye had migrated, making the fish asymmetric, but it had not crossed the crown of the skull and made it to the other side. These are definitely intermediate species, but we can go one better.

The Psettodesgenus of flatfish (the turbots - yummy by the way) have one eye that is located right at the crown of their skull. Perhaps technically you could say that is has migrated to the other side, but just barely. And this brings us to another question, which eye moves?

Some flatfish are right-eyed (dextral) that swim left side down. Others are left-eyed (sinistral) and swim with their right side down. Some species are strict and some are more likely to have reversants (individuals that lay on their other side). A 2005 paper stated that only about 7 of the 700 species of flatfish show lateral polymorphism (lateral = side, poly = more than one, and morph = shape), ie. some right-eyed and some left-eyed individuals.


The bottom image has on the left side depicts the two
extinct species of flatfish where the migrating eye hadn’t
quite made it to its destination. The middle cartoon is
the extant Psettodidae, like the Indian Halibut on the top.
The eye has just made it to the crest of the cranium. The
right cartoon on bottom shows a species where the eye
has completely migrated. Looks like great support
for evolution.
For example, a 2009 paper describes reversants for two right-eyed flounder species which are the first left-eyed individuals ever seen in these two species (Microstomus achne and Cleisthenes pinetorum). It goes the other way too – a 2013 study describes the first right-eyed individual ever seen in a megrim (sometimes called a whiff, Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis). But in the left-eyed California halibut (Paralicythys californicus), up to 40% of the individuals are right-eyed. Perhaps right-eyed species are stricter than left-eyed species.

The exception to that rule is the starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus). It’s a member of a right-eyed family of flounders, but in some cases half of the individuals are left-eyed. In this case, there seems to be more to the story - the lateral polymorphism occurs only in populations of specific geographic areas.

A paper from 2007 looked into the mystery that 7 species that show lateral polymorphism, but only two (starry flounder and P. fleusus) show a geographical distribution in their polymorphs. Off the coasts of Japan and Russian, 100% of the starry flounders are left-eyed, but near Alaska they are only 75% sinistral and from Washington state to central California the populations are about 50/50.

The researchers looked into several questions. Was there more to being left-eyed or right eyed than just which side the eye went to? Does the side make a difference that could account for the geographic distribution? They found out – yes, and yes.

They saw that the right and left-eyed individuals have more asymmetries between them than just the side of the body that the eye migrates to. They have differences in mouth size and angle, as well as tail size of all things. Right-eyed individuals had significantly longer and wider tails than did left-eyed individuals!

The research also shows that in areas where the two groups compete the most, the differences between the dextral and sinistral individuals are the greatest. This suggested to them that the differences allow them to compete for different prey – to fill different ecological niches. The hypothesis is that the polymorphic asymmetries give them different advantages which they then exploit and this is why there is a stable geographic distribution in populations.


A very complicated but informative chart from the paper
on pitx2 reactivation during metamorphosis. Note which
side is right and left and then follow what happens for
the two species, one right-eyed and one left-eyed. The
right side shows what can happen if you block pitx2. In
the reversed individual, the left habenula (dd. l) enlarges
instead of the right.
Well, that’s cool, but how is it controlled – what makes a fish right- or left-eyed? A 2009 paper started to investigate this. During development of the embryo, certain internal asymmetries develop (will talk more about this in a few weeks). In fish and other vertebrates, this is controlled by expression of certain genes in the habenulaof the brain. One of the gene products (proteins) in the habenula is called pitx2.

There are actually two habenulae, one in each hemisphere of the brain, as part of the thalamus. The researchers looked at the brains of right-eyed and left-eyed flounder species and detected some things that were the same and some things that were different.

After the pitx2 did its job in the embryo, it was turned off. But right before metamorphosis – when the eye migrates and the fish lies down on one side, pitx2 was turned back on – only in the left habenula, regardless of which way the fish’s eye was going to migrate and which way it was going to lie down.

Not only that, but the right habenula started to grow bigger than the left habenula in both dextral and sinistral species. The only thing that was different was the rotation of the brain, with the left habenula moving forward in the right-eyed species and the opposite occurring in the left-eyed species. The same changes occurred in fish no matter which eye migrated!


This copepod is about to swim into the top border of
this image. The reason for this is that he only has one eye
(the light spot between the antennae), so he has no depth
perception! By the way, he’s only 2 mm long, so he
probably will just bounce off the edge.
However, in those fish that they experimentally blocked the second round of pitx2 activity, you could get a normally turned fish or a reversant. The only difference - when you got a reversant, it was the left habenula that enlarged, not the right. I think we still have some more to learn.

By the way – at the beginning of today’s post I asked if there were any real animals with one eye. I made it sound like there aren’t but in fact there are exceptions. In some small crustaceans (arthropods) called copepods, the majority of species have a single eye right in the middle of their head! What’s more, a 1994 study showed that the holdfast of a particular copepod parasite is asymmetric (like we saw last week) and this particular copepod is a parasite of only flatfishes! How symmetric this tale of asymmetry turned out to be!

Next week - can a single tooth render an animal asymmetric? Well, that depends on the tooth, doesn't it.



MacDonald P (2013). A rare occurrence of reversal in the common megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis (Pleuronectiformes: Scophthalmidae) in the northern North Sea. Journal of fish biology, 83 (3), 691-4 PMID: 23991885

Suzuki, T., Washio, Y., Aritaki, M., Fujinami, Y., Shimizu, D., Uji, S., & Hashimoto, H. (2009). Metamorphic pitx2 expression in the left habenula correlated with lateralization of eye-sidedness in flounder Development, Growth & Differentiation, 51 (9), 797-808 DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-169X.2009.01139.x

Goto T (2009). Reversals in two dextral flounder species, Microstomus achne and Cleisthenes pinetorum (Pleuronectida; Teleostei), from Japan. Journal of fish biology, 74 (3), 669-73 PMID: 20735586

BERGSTROM, C. (2007). Morphological evidence of correlational selection and ecological segregation between dextral and sinistral forms in a polymorphic flatfish, Platichthys stellatus Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20 (3), 1104-1114 DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01290.x

Friedman, M. (2008). The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry Nature, 454 (7201), 209-212 DOI: 10.1038/nature07108


For more information or classroom activities, see:

Flatfish –

Copepods –

Habenula -




The Search For The Unicorn - Slightly Off Center

$
0
0
Biology concepts – teeth, narwhals, unicorns, bilateral symmetry, evolution, mechanosensing, asymmetry



The movie Legend starred Tom Cruise and Mia Sara,
as well as a bunch of little people – you know, actors
that were small, not small actors. The unicorn pair
represented light and goodness, and kept the devil
at bay. Until Mia got cocky and touched one. Then
Cruise had to save the day.
It’s no secret that some pretty odd and awful stories have come out of North Korea in the past few years. Kim Jung Un and his recent ancestors have done some amazing things….. supposedly. Un’s father, Kim Jung Il apparently invented the hamburger, and he shot 11 hole-in-ones in his first round of golf.

Not to be outdone, Kim Jung Un made an amazing announcement in 2012. He and his archeologists discovered a unicorn lair. Yep, North Korea’s twenty-something leader proved the existence of unicorns. The lair was supposedly the resting place of the unicorn ridden by the great King Dongmyeong, around the year 0 CE.

The earliest writings that describe unicorns were those of the Greek, Ctesias, in the late 5th century BCE. He described the Indian Ass, an animal with a white, strong body and perhaps a red head from which sprung a long single horn of red, white, and black. It was said that a cup made from the horn could neutralize any poison.


There are real animals with one horn, like the
unicorn leatherjacket fish in the top left, and the
Indian rhinoceros at the bottom left. The rhinoceros
beetle has one big horn and fairly large part of his
jaw below, so I don’t know if he counts. On the top
right is the Meller’s chameleon. They say he a has a
horn on his nose, but you have to look close and
want to see it.
Four hundred and fifty years later, Pliny the Elder, historian of Rome, also wrote about a very strong animal with a single horn protruding from its forehead. He described an oryx (an antelope with a single horn), an Indian Ox (probably a rhinoceros – rhino = nose and ceros = horn), and the same Indian Ass with a horse-like build and a single horn.

Pliny wrote, “The unicorn (uni = one, and ceros = horn) is the fiercest animal, and it is said that it is impossible to capture one alive. It has the body of a horse, the head of a stag, the feet of an elephant, the tail of a boar, and a single black horn three feet long in the middle of its forehead. Its cry is a deep bellow.” Uh-huh. That doesn’t sound much like an antelope or a rhino, so I guess he meant the Indian Ass.

Soon, Romans were trading long spiral tusks, but no one was telling where exactly they had come from. These “unicorn” horns were snow white with a tight spiral. As a result of these horns, the unicorn in the West settled down to be a pure white horse with a very long, pure white, spiraled horn. This is the image we generally see in tapestries and illustrations.


Kirin Beer from Japan uses a unicorn (kirin) as its
logo. Look closely and you can see the single
horn on its head.
In the Far East there were unicorns as well. Known as the qilin (pronounced chee-lin) in China, there was a version in Japan too, the kirin. This was a benevolent animal, with shiny scales like a dragon and one or perhaps two horns. It avoided fighting and walked so softly that it would not disturb or harm a blade of grass. An animal like this (perhaps the saola) is most likely the one referred to in the North Korea stories.

But what about real life? Most likely, those horns in the Roman markets were really narwhaltusks, as discussed in a 2011 paper. It is very likely that the narwhal played into the unicorn legend, as their tusks could be offered as concrete proof of unicorn existence.

The narwhal (Monodon monoceros) is an amazing animal, and fits into our recent theme of animals that abandon bilateral symmetry. Monodonmeans one tooth, and monoceros means one horn; a pretty accurate name, all in all.


Our post today uncovers many of the problems
with these cartoon narwhals. Yes, they love where
there is ice. But they don’t have all those teeth, the
tusk isn’t centered and doesn’t come out of their
forehead, and they don’t have a dorsal fin
to speak of.
Narwhals are a species of whale, meaning that they are mammals. They live way up north. From Baffin Bay, around Greenland, to the north of Russian, they swim in pods of 10-100, but you’ll rarely see them even if you live near there. There are perhaps 45,000-50,000 narwhals today.

This is a steady number because it’s so hard to get to where they live. Consequently, narwhals haven’t been hunted into extinction. They spend a lot of their time on deep dives under the ice floes, so they aren’t seen often. No narwhal has ever been seen feeding; we only know what they eat from examining stomach contents.

Their most distinctive feature is the long (up to 10 ft/3 m) tusk on the males. Just one tusk, mind you, like a unicorn horn. The narwhal tusk - like elephant, walrus or warthog tusks - is a tooth.

Very young narwhals have six maxillary (upper jaw) tooth buds and two pairs of tooth buds in the lower jaw (mandible). However, only one pair develops any further. A tooth bud is what you find on an X-ray of a child (see picture).


You can see the teeth developing from crown to
root in the darker tooth buds. The pulp is usually
dark, but the middle tooth has had a root canal
and a filling has been placed in the whole pulp
chamber. The large tooth to eh left is the first
molar. It doesn’t have a baby tooth to push out
of its way.
Teeth form in the jawbones as tooth buds. Most narwhal teeth never go past the tooth bud stage, but occasionally a tooth will erupt where one shouldn’t. These are often misshapen or caught between the bone and the palate, or in the wrong place. This is all good evidence that the teeth are vestigial; they serve no functional purpose for the normal narwhal.

Just one tooth, almost always the left cuspid (most people call it a canine), does develop. Hold on though, it isn’t that simple. Instead of developing in a vertically directed tooth bud and erupting down through the jaw, the left canine stays horizontal and erupt right through the front of the jaw and through the narwhals lip!

Since the tusk is derived from the left cuspid, it erupts left of center, making the narwhal bilaterally asymmetric! A 2012 study showed that the bony attachment and length proves that the narwhal tusk is a canine, not an incisor as so many people think. But, it’s not just the location that makes the narwhal tusk amazing, it’s how it’s made and what it can do.

A 1988 study suggests that the tight spiral as it grows keep the tusk from curving. A curved tusk would make it hard of the narwhal to swim in a straight line. Whatever the reason, the spiral is an iconic image for both narwhals and unicorns.


The top image shows how the narwhal tusk is off
center. The bottom image is my analogy. The tusk
is offset like a knight with his jousting lance. This
is Heath Ledger in A Knight’s Tale. Um….why isn’t
he wearing armor?
Despite being a tooth, the tusk is quite flexible. It can bend up to a foot (0.3 m) in any direction without breaking. It’s awfully long, we said 10 ft. above, but most are in the 8-9 foot range. This is huge when you think that most male narwhals are only about 15 foot long in the body.

Teeth are normally built with the hard enamel on the outside. Enamel is harder than bone and protects the teeth from breakage when chewing. The mouth is a rough environment and teeth have to put up with a lot of abuse.

Deep to the enamel is a material called dentin. This stuff has a lot of similarity to bone, although it isn’t quite as hard and doesn’t have living cells within it (like osteocytes – see this post). The dentin does contain millions of tubules that go from the enamel junction all the way to the pulp in the center. The pulp has a nerve and blood vessels.

The dentinal tubules have fluid and small processes of the neuron in them. When you eat something cold or have a cavity, the fluid in these tubules moves and changes the pressure in the pulp chamber. The single neuron in the tooth is a pain neuron, so any pressure change is interpreted by your brain as pain. It teaches you to take care of your teeth, but it ain’t the most pleasant of all evolutionary adaptations.


The cartoon on the left shows the enamel crown
covering the dentin and the dentinal tubules.
Inside the tubules are the odontoblasts that lay
down dentin all during the life of the tooth and the
nerves that go into the tubules. The right image is
an electron photomicrograph of the tubules.
The narwhal tusk is different. It is the only tooth known that has the dentin on the outside, although a 1987 study showed that it has no enamel, so it isn’t really an inside out tooth. The dentin is covered by a thin layer of cementum. This is what normally covers the roots of the teeth and helps attach them to bone. The dentin of the narwhal tusk has about 10 million of those tubules, but it is different from human dentin.

A 1990 study compared calcium content and hardness between human teeth and narwhals. The narwhal cementum was more mineralized than human, but the dentin of narwhals was less mineralized than human dentin and was softer. This may be why the narwhal tusk is so flexible.

The tubules of the narwhal tusk dentin connect to channels in the cementum, so there is a communication to the outside. A group in 2014 showed this and used the information to hypothesize that the tusk is a mechanosensor. Experiments showed that their heart rate changed when the water touching the tusk was switched from freshwater to salt water. They hypothesize that the tusk senses temperature, salinity, pressure, and perhaps touch to help in navigation and hunting.

But if that’s the case, why do only males have them? Females have to hunt too. The group from the 2014 paper offers that males and females have sexually dimorphic foraging techniques – they eat different things and hunt differently, so females don’t need horns. This is not well-supported. Many scientists believe the long tusk is a sign of health and genes and is therefore an ornament for mate selection.


The dorsal fin of the narwhal is greatly reduced. It
has notches that scientists hop to use to identify
individuals. The lack of a dorsal fin is believed to
be so they don’t injure it on the under side of the
ice floes when they surface, but it could also be so
they don’t run it into the ocean floor as they feed
upside down.
Occasionally, one will see females with a tusk, but like with many tusked females (elephants, etc), they are usually shorter. You can also find narwhal males with two tusks. But two tusks doesn’t mean that they are returned to bilateral symmetry. Both tusks spiral to the left! There must be some strong left-hand genes at work.

One last thing. The offset tusk lead to another weird narwhal behavior. A group in 2007 put cameras and positional monitors on some narwhals and found that they tend to swim upside down a lot. Almost 70% of their time on the ocean floor was spent in the supine position. Since the tusk points down just slightly, scientists believe they hunt upside down so that the tusk won’t get stuck in the ocean floor and break! The tusk must be pretty important - or they just like lounging on their backs.

Next week – another whale has become asymmetric, but in a completely different way. This time, it’s the nose that goes.



Christen AG, & Christen JA (2011). The unicorn and the narwhal: a tale of the tooth. Journal of the history of dentistry, 59 (3), 135-42 PMID: 22372187

Kingsley, M., & Ramsay, M. (1988). The Spiral in the Tusk of the Narwhal ARCTIC, 41 (3) DOI: 10.14430/arctic1723

Nweeia, M., Eichmiller, F., Hauschka, P., Donahue, G., Orr, J., Ferguson, S., Watt, C., Mead, J., Potter, C., Dietz, R., Giuseppetti, A., Black, S., Trachtenberg, A., & Kuo, W. (2014). Sensory ability in the narwhal tooth organ system The Anatomical Record, 297 (4), 599-617 DOI: 10.1002/ar.22886

Dietz, R., Shapiro, A., Bakhtiari, M., Orr, J., Tyack, P., Richard, P., Eskesen, I., & Marshall, G. (2007). Upside-down swimming behaviour of free-ranging narwhals BMC Ecology, 7 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1472-6785-7-14




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Narwhals –

Tooth structure –



This Nose Knows

$
0
0
Biology concepts – evolution, asymmetry, bilateral symmetry, phonic lips, whales, echolocation, encephalization quotient, density



This picture gives you a good idea of just how big
a spermaceti whale is. Captain Ahab wanted to take
this guy on mano y mano. He was nuts.
Captain Ahab had an obsession for the white whale in Moby Dick. It was a killer, but not a killer whale. It swamped boats, rammed ships, and generally made a nuisance of itself. But it seemed to be intelligent as well, the way it planned attacks and how it looked at him sometimes. Is that weird for a whale?

Not for Moby Dick; he was a spermaceti whale. The fact that he was white and revengeful is nothing compared to how evolution has fashioned the real-life spermaceti whales. They have a head that is so weird - I just can’t wrap my head around it.

First off, the spermaceti whale is often known by its shorter name, the one that sounds like the cells in the male reproductive fluid. I have learned that using that word gets my posts blocked from most schools, so lets use the scientific name, Physeter macrocephalus, where macro = large and cephalus = head.

P. macrocephalusis the largest of the toothed whales. It is the fifth largest whale in the world, behind the blue, right, fin, and bowhead whales – all baleen whales that eat krill and plankton. P. macrocephalus averages 25,000-55,000 kg (60 US tons) and can be 70 ft (21.5 m) in length.

Fully one third of that length is head - and it gets weirder. The spermaceti whale’s head is very much an exception in the animal world. As it just so happens, its head is asymmetric, which brings P. macrocephalus into our growing list of asymmetric animals – the flatworm parasites of fish gills, the scale-eating cichlid fish, the flatfish, and the narwhals. See a pattern here?

A big head suggests a big brain, and P. macrocephalus has the biggest brain on the planet, averaging over 18 pounds (8 kg). So maybe Ahab was right when he and the other sailors described Moby Dick as having “intelligent malignity.”


The model is of an 18 lb. spermaceti whale brain. I
can’t vouch for the color. Notice how it’s as big as
your head! Bigger! The model of the left is named
Frank and he is available for lingerie and catalog
shoots.
Nope, it takes more than a big brain to have big thoughts. A more telling statistic for mammals is brain size relative to the predicted brain mass based on body size, something called the encephalization quotient (EQ). Brain size does usually increase with body size, but the increase isn’t linear, so scientists include a cephalization factor (C).

To compare relative cognitive power between mammal species, EQ is the ratio of C over the expected value for C of an animal of given mass (S), EQ = CSr. Humans have the highest EQ (7.4-7.8) but dolphins are pretty hefty as well (4.14). Whales of different types have different EQs,; P. macrocephalus’ value is very high (~3.8). But if he wanted to have a brain like humans, it would have to weigh several hundred pounds! The blue whale’s EQ is much lower (~1.0); in general the toothed whales (Odontocetes) have much higher EQs than the baleen whales. In fact, the toothed whales and dolphins as a group are pretty much second only to the humans in EQ.

A 2012 study sort of links humans and toothed whales like P. macrocephalus when it comes to EQ. Their paper suggests that the greatest variance in EQ occurs in primates and toothed whales, and suggests that the evolutionary constraints have been relaxed in these two groups of animals.

A 2013 study suggests that during evolution, the toothed whales underwent a body mass decrease, while baleen whales underwent a mass increase – each without changing the brain size much. This led to toothed whales having higher EQs, closer to humans than even some primates (lemurs are often below a 1.0).

But EQ doesn’t mean everything. A new study comparing killer whale brains and P. macrocephalusbrains suggests that the much smaller killer whale has a brain about the same size as P. macrocephalus. While it gives them a bigger EQ in general, the main difference in the brains of these two cetaceans (whales and dolphins) is in their cerebellums.

In this case, the killer whale is the exception – in all other mammals, the cerebellum size scales directly with overall brain size. The results suggest to the authors that the differences relate to what they eat and how they dive – the killer whales have to be much more agile, and this is one thing in which the cerebellum functions.


A great illustration of the P. macrocephalus head. The skull is in tan, the spermaceti and junk in yellow, brain fits in 
the little triangle made by the jaw bone, the frontal sac, and where the nasal passages go down to the lungs. You
can see the two nasal passages and their different paths in the transverse cut. See how the blowhole is so far
front? I put an arrow where it exits in the transverse cut. The right nasal passage goes to the phonic lips.
All this talk of big brains in the spermaceti whale may give you the wrong idea. Look at the picture above and you get a better appreciation for the size of this animal. And again, the head is just so weird. The vast majority of P. macrocephalus’ head is outside his/her skull (the tan portion)!

The biggest part of the whale’s head is devoted to the spermaceti organ and the junk organ (or melon). The brain is in the little case toward the back and behind the jaw. The real question is what all those compartments and tissues above the skull are for.
           
P. macrocephalusis one of the whales that uses clicks and rolls as well as echolocation. Lots of research has been done on the vocalizations of whales so let me explain….. no, is too long, let me sum up.

Echolocation uses high frequency short clicks, and they’re loud - over 230 decibels. We’ve talked about these before. The lower frequency coda (long rolls) are for gabbing, and slow clicks can be heard for 60 km so they are for males keeping track of other females during breeding season, according to a 2013 paper. These clicks and codas can be highly directional and are very powerful. This is what all that equipment is for.

Here’s how it happens. A vibration is produced just south of the blowhole (more on this below). That vibration is projected backward, through the spermaceti organ. This organ is filled with a whitish, waxy, fatty material. Sailors thought it was the whale’s male reproductive fluid (it isn’t) – and that’s how the organ and the whale got their common name. It is about 1900 L (502 gal) of very useful spermaceti oil for lamps. This is why they were hunted almost to extinction.


The left image is the surface of the frontal air sac
where the clicks and codas are reflected back through
the melon. The right image is the phonic lips of a
spermaceti whale. Made form a nostril, they act much
like our vocal chords, but I know people who can make
a heck of a noise with their nostril and a Kleenex.
At the back of the spermaceti organ is a knobbed plate in the frontal air sac. This reflects, focuses, and amplifies the vibrations. They bounces back toward the front of the whale head, through the junk (melon). This organ is also filled with waxes and oils, but the sailors didn’t think it was worth any money, so they called it the junk. This organ is made of many vertical compartments of spermaceti. When it leaves the front of the whale, it is one powerful click.

When the echolocation returns from the target, it vibrates the lower jaw and a fat pad at the back of the jaw. This connects directly to the auditory part of the brain, so the return click is processed to give a distance and direction to the prey. The slow clicks and social communication are made about the same way, but some are so powerful that they can stun or even kill nearby prey so they can be eaten easily.

Now you know another way that P. macrocephalus is an exception, few other animals can echolocate, although dolphins do have a much smaller melon for the purpose. We still need to talk about how that vibration is created.

The upper respiratory portion of the spermaceti whale is a thing to behold. There are two nasal passages as you would expect, but they take very different paths. The left nasal passage travels to the left of the spermaceti organ, while the right flattens out and travels between the spermaceti organ and the junk.

Add to this that while the left nasal passage ends in the left nostril – the blowhole, the right nostril doesn’t communicate with the outside world! It ends at the phonic lips, the source of the vibration. As a result, the spermaceti whales have one nostril while all other whales have two, and the one they have is set way off to the left side of the head. This arrangement makes the whale asymmetric.


This is not P. macrocephalus; it’s a blue whale. You can
see the difference easily. The blowhole is way back on
the head, and there are two holes in the blowhole, one
for each nostril.
The position of the blowhole is way up front. All other whales have their blowholes behind the jaw, as the nasal passages go almost straight up. The blowhole being set way off to the left helps make spermaceti whales easy to identify when they surface.

To explain the phonic lips, think of the honk and rumble when some people blow their nose. That’s from vibration of their nostrils. Well, P. macrocephalusdoes the same thing, although the nostril is inside its head, only located on the right side, and has been modified to look more like our vocal folds.

On first examination, the phonic lips looked like the lips of a monkey, so the French name is museau de singe (see picture above). This makes the P. macrocephalus the only whale with one set of phonic lips, all others have two - and this exception leads to another. Since the two nasal passages are quite separate, a 2005 study found that the spermaceti whale is the only whale that can breath and click at the same time!


In late 2014, seven sperm whales beached themselves
in Australia. This presents a problem because they have
to be cleaned up. As they decay, gas builds up inside.
Somebody (least seniority) has to release that gas.
World’s – worst – job.
Lest all of this hasn’t been impressive enough, the spermaceti organ may have another amazing function. P. macrocephalus dives deeper than any other animal, 3000 m or more. To swim down that far is hard, and if you sink easily, then staying on the surface would be hard. Scientists think P. macrocephalus conserves muscular energy by changing the density of the spermaceti fluid.

When diving, the whale can suck water in through the blowhole. This cools the waxy fluid in the spermaceti organ. The density goes up and helps the whale dive. When it wants to surface, it can increase the blood flow around the organ. This brings more heat and melts the spermaceti. Its lower density makes the whale more buoyant and helps it to surface! Evolution is amazing.

Next week, let’s leave the water and check out some asymmetric flying animals.



Ridgway, S., & Hanson, A. (2014). Sperm Whales and Killer Whales with the Largest Brains of All Toothed Whales Show Extreme Differences in Cerebellum Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 83 (4), 266-274 DOI: 10.1159/000360519

Oliveira, C., Wahlberg, M., Johnson, M., Miller, P., & Madsen, P. (2013). The function of male sperm whale slow clicks in a high latitude habitat: Communication, echolocation, or prey debilitation? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133 (5) DOI: 10.1121/1.4795798

BODDY, A., McGOWEN, M., SHERWOOD, C., GROSSMAN, L., GOODMAN, M., & WILDMAN, D. (2012). Comparative analysis of encephalization in mammals reveals relaxed constraints on anthropoid primate and cetacean brain scaling Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25 (5), 981-994 DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02491.x

Montgomery, S., Geisler, J., McGowen, M., Fox, C., Marino, L., & Gatesy, J. (2013). THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF CETACEAN BRAIN AND BODY SIZE Evolution, 67 (11), 3339-3353 DOI: 10.1111/evo.12197

For more information or classroom activities, see:

Spermaceti whales –


Encephalization quotient –


Echolocation in whales –




The Bird Jaws of Life

$
0
0
Biology concepts – ecology, radiative speciation, talpid, tomia, temperomandibular joint, cranial kinesis, bilateral symmetry, asymmetry


You’ve heard the phrase, “As scarce as hen’s teeth?” Well, you’ve heard it if you’re as old as I. Hens don’t have teeth, so the phrase means something so rare as to be fictitious. Sort of like Will Ferrell’s chances of winning an Oscar.


Chicks don’t’ peck their way out of their shell. They
use an egg tooth to pip the shell, putting a small hole
in it. This destroys the integrity of the shell, and
they can push their way out.
Are there are any birds with teeth? They would be an exception, and that’s what this blog is all about. Maybe they just don’t have a lot to smile about. Birds are edentulous– without teeth.

Most chicks do have an egg tooth, but it’s not really a tooth. An egg tooth is a small growth on the tip of a bird’s beak just before it hatches. The chick’s talons and beak aren’t sharp enough to break through the egg, so the egg tooth does the job. They pipthe outer shell (just break through) and push themselves out.

Of course, that’s how it usually works. There are of course, exceptions. The kiwi bird of New Zealand doesn’t produce an egg tooth. It uses its strong legs – even in the shell they are strong – to kick it’s way out of the shell. A few of the other large birds of Australia do it as well. No teeth here.

There are a few species of birds that look like they have teeth as adults. Anyone who has crossed paths with a Canada Goose with goslings probably knows that they can be toothy trouble makers. Called tomia, geese teeth these look a little like snake teeth; not the fangs, just the teeth. They slope backward to help grasp food.

Tomia aren’t covered with enamel and they don’t have a pulp chamber, so they are definitely not teeth. These serrations (serrated beaks) are made from the same material as the beak itself, and the rubbing of the top and bottom bills keep them sharp. Tomia are good for cutting and grasping, but they are more like fingernails or bone, not teeth.


These are the tomia of a domestic goose. They look
formidable. Tomia are located on the lower and
upper jaws, but also on the roof of the moth and the
tongue. See how they are pointed backward to help
grip things. But they aren’t teeth!
Birds have a common ancestor with dinosaurs, and dinosaurs had teeth. T. Rex himself is a direct ancestor of today’s birds, and boy did he have teeth! The genes to make teeth are still there in birds, they’ve just been turned off.

The common ancestor of all living birds did have teeth, according to new work from UC Riverside. Birds don’t really fossilize well since their bones are so light, so the six genes of teeth production will have to do for study. Did all birds lose teeth in one fell swoop, or did different lines of birds lose teeth independently, at different times?

The researchers found that genes in all birds had the same mutations, so all birds lost their enamel, and therefore their teeth, about 116 million years ago.

Another way we know that the tooth making genes are still there – sometimes they come back! There are chickens that show a certain group of mutations – they grow true teeth. Don’t get too excited, the mutations also kill them before they hatch. The mutation is called talpid, and involves the beta-catenin gene.

A 2006 study showed that teeth of the mutant embryos were very alligator like teeth buds, and turning on beta-catenin in normal embryos brings the same tooth development. Yep, birds used to have teeth and still have them buried deep in their genes.


For some reason, anatomists call the two jaws of man
a mandible (bottom) and a maxilla (top), but the two
jaws of a bird just upper and lower mandibles. See
how much more complex the human jaw joint as
compared to the bird. Also, see how close the human
joint is to your ear, that’s why you hear yourself chew.
The toothiness of ancient birds is just the beginning. Birds have some bizarre mouths as well. In humans, the mandible (bottom jaw) houses the most complex joint in our body. The tempromandibular joint (TMJ, between the temporal bone of the skull and the mandible) can move front and back, hinge up and down, and move down and forward laterally. It’s the only joint in the body that can do all these moves. On the other hand, our maxilla (upper jaw) is completely fixed, it doesn’t move at all.

However, in most birds the upper mandible (our maxilla) can move! The attachment to the facial bones is more complicated in birds than in mammals, the upper mandible attaches to the facial bones via some cartilage, called a syndesmosis joint. There are several types of movement based on just where the upper mandible is attached to the facial bones.

Being able to move the upper jaw is call cranial kinesis (cranial = upper jaw makes up part of the cranium or skull, and kinesis =moving). Snakes are big on cranial kinesis, they need it to eat things bigger than their head. But mammals can’t do it.


Cute yes, but you should pay attention to the top
part of the beak. It moves independently of the lower
mandible. We can’t do that. It’s called cranial kinesis
when the upper jaw can hinge against the facial bones,
and parrots are the birds that do it best.
Mammals and some other animals have developed a secondary palate made of bone. This affixes the maxilla tightly to the skull; there’s no way to get any movement out of it. The secondary palate is a consequence of needing to breathe while eating (necessary because of our high metabolism) and as a result of needing to develop suction for drinking milk as babies.

As far as birds go, many species move their upper jaw a bit, but the parrots move it the most. This helps then to eat the large and oddly shaped nuts that make up their diet. But oddly enough, they don’t move their lower jaw much side to side. Herbivores do, they have flat back teeth for grinding (see picture below).

Since birds don’t have teeth to chew food, they don’t really need to move their lower jaw laterally very much. This is true for most birds, but there is one exceptional genus of birds that can move their jaws laterally quite a bit - and they have to. Their bills grow sideways and cross each other like scissors!

Herbivores use lots of lateral mandiblular movement
to help grind their food. Birds have no teeth, so they
don’t move their jaws lateral much at all.
There are about 5 species of crossbill finches, all of the genus Loxia (Greek for oblique). They are the only birds whose upper and lower bills cross one other. One grows to the right so it can pass the other (which moves to the left). In populations of each species, the dextral individuals (bottom jaw crosses to the right of the upper) are about 1:1 with sinistral individuals (bottom jaw is on the left).

This makes the crossbill bilaterally asymmetric, and the top bill is longer than the bottom, assuring this asymmetry. Why did this crossed bill evolve? It’s based on what they eat. The diet of crossbills consists only of conifer seeds, harvested straight from the maturing cones. Each species dines on the seeds of different conifers, so their bills are slightly different based on what they are digging out.

The top image is the Hispaniola crossbill. This picture
shows the crossing of the upper and lower jaws. This
individual is a dextral crossbill. The lower picture is a
red crossbill feeding. Look carefully at the beak as it is
pushing the scales of the cone apart. The crossbill
moves its lower jaw laterally more than any other bird.
The crossbill turns his head to the side and inserts the crossed bill between two scales on a cone. He moves the lower mandible laterally while turning the head a bit back to vertical. This pries the scales open while it opens the mouth. When the space is wide enough, the tongue shoots out and grabs the exposed seeds. See the video at the end of the post.

Each bird attacks the cone based on which type of crossed bill it has, dextral or sinistral. Therefore, each bird can only access about half the seeds of a cone. This is why populations are 1:1 dextral/sinistral – it allows any population to get at all the seeds. If one morph (dextral or sinistral) predominated, some would starve. Having 1:1 ratio allows both morphs to feed maximally.

Different conifers have differently shaped cones. Over evolutionary time, individual differences were maximized until different species resulted. This allows different populations to live in the same area, because they feed on different trees. Called adaptive radiation, Darwin’s finches did it in the Galapagos Islands because of isolation and different foods. Here the crossbill species do it with in the same area to fill different feeding niches.


Some portion of the instructions for the crossing bill
is genetic, but how much? Look at the chick’s bill. It
isn’t crossed yet. They don’t cross until they are ready
to feed on their own. Is it an acquired characteristic?
Species have different bills, but so do individuals within a population, they are just smaller differences. A study in 2009 showed for the first time that differences in feeding ability of crossbills, based on individual differences (fluctuating asymmetry, will talk more about it in a couple weeks) in bill shape, may be used in mate selection. Those that are able to forage fastest seem to draw the attention of more females, and for longer times.

A second study indicates that differently individuals have different contact calls, and those with the most similar bills would respond best to each other’s calls. This would reinforce mating choice by assortative flocking. Feeding and calling based on bill morphology are two reasons behind ecological speciation in crossbills.

The above evidence of mate selection and radiative adaption suggest that bill shape is genetic, but it isn’t totally genetic. Chicks are born with straight bills, but they bend and cross at some point before the chick is required to search out food for itself. And a 2005 study found no evidence for simple or gender-based inheritance when examining captive bred versus will crossbills. More research is obviously needed.


The wrybill of New Zealand is the only bird in the world
with a beak that bends sideways. It is bilaterally
asymmetric like the crossbill, but in a somewhat weirder
way. It’s supposed to help find food, but other birds
with straight bill find just as much food in the rocks
as they do.
There is one bird that is even more asymmetric than the crossbills. The wrybill (Anarhynchus frontalis; wry is Old English for contorted) lives on the islands of New Zealand. Many birds have bills that bend up or down (or even cross), but this is the only bird whose bill turns to the side – always the right.

A single species of plover, the wrybill (Ngutuapore in native Maori language) is rare; only 5000 live on the North Island and fly to the South Island to breed each year. The turned bill is supposed to be for turning stones over and retrieving crustaceans, worms, and insects from the crevices of shore rocks.

However, the wrybill has been studied very little, and other wading birds do just as well at turning stones over, so the reason for the bill turn isn't understood. We don’t even know just how or if it is an adaptive advantage. Even if we don't know why it exists, it must play some role – the turn is ALWAYS to the right, and even the unhatched chicks have the turned bill. We’ll have to wait for the next turn in their story.

Next week - if we want to continue talking about bilateral asymmetry, we first have to talk about how males and females look different - well some do. But in animals like spotted hyenas, even the experts can tell the guys from the gals.





Meredith, R., Zhang, G., Gilbert, M., Jarvis, E., & Springer, M. (2014). Evidence for a single loss of mineralized teeth in the common avian ancestor Science, 346 (6215), 1254390-1254390 DOI: 10.1126/science.1254390

Smith, J., Sjoberg, S., Mueller, M., & Benkman, C. (2012). Assortative flocking in crossbills and implications for ecological speciation Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279 (1745), 4223-4229 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1500

Benkman, C., Parchman, T., & Mezquida, E. (2010). Patterns of coevolution in the adaptive radiation of crossbills Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1206 (1), 1-16 DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05702.x

SNOWBERG, L., & BENKMAN, C. (2009). Mate choice based on a key ecological performance trait Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22 (4), 762-769 DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01699.x




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Tomia –

Crossbill –

Wrybill –

Cranial kinesis –

Radiative adaptation -




Why Do Males And Females Look Different?

$
0
0
Biology concepts – sexual dimorphism, phenotype, evolution, sexual selection, secondary sex characteristics, reproductive success, natural selection



Elephants are an animal that we can picture easily in
our head. But is this a male or a female? Don’t answer
quickly, in African elephants both the males and
females have tusks, but in the Asian elephants, it’s only
the males (usually).
We all know what a hippo looks like, an elephant, a duck. In most cases, if you name a species, you can picture the animal in your head. But are you picturing a male or a female? Sometimes they look the same, we can only tell the males from the females if we get close enough and are socially rude enough.

But in some cases, it’s much easier to tell the guys from the gals, so much so that sometimes scientists misidentify them as different species. The differences between how males and females look and how they look is called sexual dimorphism (di = two, and morph = form) and it can range from the subtle to the fantastic.

We have been talking about bilateral asymmetry in the past few weeks, and our next examples of bilateral asymmetry require a discussion of sexual dimorphism – a subject full of its own exceptions.

The mildest form of sexual dimorphism is when the difference lies in just in reproductive organs.  This may or may not be visible to the naked eye. Take the American white pelican (Pelicanus erythrorhynochos). On average, the males are just slightly larger than the females, but you couldn’t tell this by looking at them. Only their reproductive organs tell them apart and the external portion of the cloaca of a male looks just like that of a female. Maybe you could separate them another way – I hear only guys like the Three Stooges.

A better example would be the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). The females probably like the Stooges more than the males, because this species has females that are extremely masculinized. Many studies have been done on just how this species is unique among mammals in its lack of sexual dimorphism.


Is this a male or female spotted hyena? Even experts
can’t tell. The females are just as aggressive as the males
and they could easily chase off a cheetah. Males and
females look exactly alike, but I’m betting a female
wouldn’t let a meal get away so easily.
A 2014 review discusses how the female external reproductive tissues look just like the males. Scientists have studied hyena individuals for years assuming they were males until all of suddenly they give birth to a litter of pups! The review goes over the data that shows that much of the external genitalia are masculinized before the reproductive organs can even start producing hormones, so much of the similarities between males and females is genetically driven. But not all – certain aspects could be stopped with anti-androgen drugs.

A 2012 study showed that spotted hyenas have 5x lower levels of SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin). This protein binds up estrogens and androgens and regulates how available they are to the tissues. The spotted hyena has a slight mutation in the gene. The result is that lower overall levels of that gene product (protein) are made. With less regulating protein, the androgens are free to strongly masculinize both the tissues and the behaviors of the females. They are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than the males. This, along with their external reproductive organs looking so similar to males makes them a complete exception in the mammals.

But it isn’t always so hard to tell boy from girl. There are several external body features that may help if you find yourself needing to tell, say, a boy wombat from a girl wombat.

Size (mass, length, height, muscularity) is a common sexually dimorphic trait. In mammals and birds, the males are most often larger than the females, but our talk of spotted hyenas from above tells you that isn’t always the case. The exceptions carry over to birds as well. When the gender that is normally smaller in most species of a phylum turns out to be bigger, this is called reversed sexual size dimorphism or just reversed size dimorphism (RSD).


These are southern elephants seas, a mating pair. No, he’s
not a cradle robber, the males are just that much bigger
than the females. The penguins let you know just how
far south we are. Does she look scared to you?
Hawks, owls, and falcons (all raptors) show this RSD, which was investigated in 2005. The study found that the small-male hypothesis was supported – that males got smaller to become better foragers, while the females remained large or got larger as prey for their chicks got larger. The study concluded that RSD was a results of natural selection for resource and niche management rather than a selection based on who to mate with (sexual selection).

Amongst the mammals that follow the rule of larger males, the biggest size dimorphism is seen in the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina). The males weigh 8-10x more than the females, and they have a huge proboscis that the females don’t have. When hanging out together, they are often mistaken for an adult and a juvenile....unless she’s a trophy wife and he’s 50 years older than her. Then it’s completely believable.

Outside of mammals and birds, phyla generally have females that are larger than males. That’s if there is a difference in size between the sexes at all - many species don’t have sexual size dimorphism. One that does is the golden silk spider (Nephila clavipes) has a female that 35-70x the mass of the male and is 7-8x longer than he is. Many spiders have larger females.


On the left is the golden silk spider that lives in North
America, from NC to TX. The intruder above is the male,
while the female is hogging most of the picture. On the
right is A. aquatica where the male is bigger and both
males and females live underwater their entire lives.
But even in spiders there is an exception. The water spider(Argyroneta aquatica) is one of the few spiders where the male is larger than the female, but that’s not the weird part. It spins a web under water that acts as a diving bell. The spider pulls down air and holds it under the bell of the web. A 2013 study showed that the web contains a biogel that holds the air in the web. It can pull oxygen out of the water and replenish the air in the bell, so the spider can live and hunt under water without ever coming to the surface again.

Often, male and female animals have differences in secondary sex characteristics– traits that distinguish the two genders but are not related directly to the reproductive organs. Colors or ornaments (like wattles, antlers, etc.) can be used to tell the differences between males and females. These are phenotypic (pheno = observed and type= characteristic) differences; they make the two animals look different, not just be of different size.

Color is a good example of a phenotypic sexual dimorphism (sexual dichromatism). Cardinals are red (male) or kind of grayish-brown (female), while male and female Eclectus parrots (Eclectus roratus) are both colorful, they just have completely different coloration patterns (see picture below). Mandrill (a type of primate) males have coloration on their face and bums, while the females are basically all one color.


The Eclectus parrots on the left are also a mating pair.
The male is green and the female is red and blue. Why
might this sexual dimorphism have developed. Both are
bright and could be spotted easily, although in a forest
the male is probably hidden better. The right image is the
triplewart seadevil female. I superimposed a male about
the right size and where he would attach (see arrow).
Secondary sex characteristics often work in combination with differences in size. Perhaps one of the most dramatic examples is the triplewart seadevil (Cryptopsaras couseii), a type of anglerfish. The female is huge, up to 10 kg, with a bioluminescent lure and a gaping mouth. But the male is 1/25th her size and only 150 g at most; he looks nothing like her. He exists only as a parasite that attaches to her side and gets nourishment from her body. He is there when it is time to mate because he’s always there, just hanging on.

Why would it be advantageous for species to show a sexual dimorphism – like size, phenotype, or even behavior? There are sexual dimorphic behaviors, like male penguins presenting pebbles to prospective mates or male manakin birds dancing for females. Some birds dance better than others – at least according to the females, so this is a selection criterion just like other sexual dimorphisms, but these are beyond our discussion today.

Sexual selection (mate selection) criteria are good reasons for sexual dimorphisms. If a male (or every once in a while a female) has enough energy to make ornaments (or even better, larger ornaments like horns, wattles, etc.), then they must be good at finding food or have good genes. This would give those with larger ornaments a reproductive advantage and would select for genes that promote larger ornaments. Over time, there would be greater and greater separation between males and females.

Likewise, larger tusks or antlers would allow a male to compete better against other males. This would again help separate those with supposedly stronger genes. Winning a battle might reflect bigger muscles, again a sign of better energy procurement or the ability to resist disease. All in all, he’d be a better mate for a female looking for physical survival traits. The more a species starts to control its environment (ie. humans), the less these survival or strength genes matter.


This is a form of sexual behavior dimorphism in the
manakin bird. The male dances for the female. Now we
know where Michael Jackson got the idea for the
moonwalk.
Then again, sexual dimorphism may be a survival advantage. If the two genders are put together somewhat differently, then perhaps they will exploit different food sources in the same area. This would allow both males and females to get enough energy and more of each gender would survive to reproduce because they aren’t competing with each other for resources. This is what happens with some hummingbird species where the males and females have different bill shapes and lengths that allow them to drink from different types of flowers.

A new paper shows that plumage color in birds is often related to survival advantage - not mate selection advantage. Plumage can be used for camouflage, when males live in slightly different environments than females. The alternative - if they don’t survive, they probably won’t mate. On the other hand, sexual size dimorphisms can promote stronger mate selection if the males are bigger (sexual selection), or may allow for the mothers to hunt better and find more food for offspring if it is they that are larger (natural selection).

In some arthropods, there is often a sexual size dimorphism where the female is larger. This would allow them to lay more eggs – more eggs means more potential offspring might survive to reproduce themselves. Likewise, female humans have a wider pelvis to allow for passage of the baby through the birth canal - a dimorphism not associated with mate selection. Males don’t need that – thank goodness.

We see here that the point of sexual dimorphisms can be for reproductive success or survival advantage. These are what keeps a species living generation after generation. However, evolution has deemed reproductive success even more important than individual life span. In pheasants, the females live much longer, so the males have to make themselves stand out so that they will mate as often as possible in their shorter lives. Therefore, they are colored much more brightly.

Next week, sexual dimorphism isn’t just an animal thing. There are genders in plants too. Sometimes they different sexes have very different characteristics so that they can mate as well, but do plants select mates?



Dunn, P., Armenta, J., & Whittingham, L. (2015). Natural and sexual selection act on different axes of variation in avian plumage color Science Advances, 1 (2) DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400155

Neumann, D., & Kureck, A. (2013). Composite structure of silken threads and a proteinaceous hydrogel which form the diving bell wall of the water spider Agyroneta aquatica SpringerPlus, 2 (1) DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-223

Cunha, G., Risbridger, G., Wang, H., Place, N., Grumbach, M., Cunha, T., Weldele, M., Conley, A., Barcellos, D., Agarwal, S., Bhargava, A., Drea, C., Hammond, G., Siiteri, P., Coscia, E., McPhaul, M., Baskin, L., & Glickman, S. (2014). Development of the external genitalia: Perspectives from the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) Differentiation, 87 (1-2), 4-22 DOI: 10.1016/j.diff.2013.12.003

Hammond, G., Miguel-Queralt, S., Yalcinkaya, T., Underhill, C., Place, N., Glickman, S., Drea, C., Wagner, A., & Siiteri, P. (2012). Phylogenetic Comparisons Implicate Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin in “Masculinization” of the Female Spotted Hyena Endocrinology, 153 (3), 1435-1443 DOI: 10.1210/en.2011-1837

Krüger, O. (2005). The Evolution of Reversed Sexual Size Dimorphism in Hawks, Falcons and Owls: A Comparative Study Evolutionary Ecology, 19 (5), 467-486 DOI: 10.1007/s10682-005-0293-9


For more information or classroom activities, see:

Sexual dimorphism –

sexual selection –



Boy Plants Are From Mars …..

$
0
0
Biology concepts – sexual dimorphism, plants, monoecious, dioecious, pistil, stamen, floral scent, ecology, ecological selection



Charles Darwin missed the boat on linking his sexual
and natural selection in animals to plants as well.
This is odd because he was quite the botanist and
spent many years studying grasses and such with his
son. The parallels between selection in plants and
animals might have strengthened his initial argument,
but there would still be dissent about the descent of man.
Charles Darwin was a smart guy. He had a lot to do with recognizing sexual dimorphism and natural selection and sexual dimorphism to come up with the idea of sexual selection (natural selection based on preference of one sex for certain characteristics in the other) in evolution. But he blew it when it to recognizing sexual dimorphism in plants.

Does it seem weird to talk gender differences in plants? Yes, they do have genders and sex chromosomes, but it's way more complicated in plants than in animals. More complicated probably means more exceptions, but now let’s focus on the main types of reproductive systems in plants and the types of sexual dimorphism they create.

We have talked about how plants come in many varieties-angiosperms, gymnosperms, bryophytes, etc. in previous posts. Many can reproduce both sexually and asexually, but for today, let’s limit ourselves to angiosperms (flowering plants) and sexual reproduction.

More than 90% of flowering plants have flowers with male reproductive organs (stamen) and female reproductive organs (pistil) on the same individual plant. The term in botany for this is monoecy– the plant is monoecious (mono = one and ecious = house).  

The anther produces pollen (the male microgametophyte, see this post) and the carpel produces the ovule with the egg cells (female microgametophyte). How could a plant have differences based on sex if both sexes are on the same flower? Can a flower be dimorphic with itself? Well…. no, but it isn’t always that simple.


Carnovali’s painting of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis
from 1856. The nymph became so smitten with him on
first sight that she prayed they would never be parted.
The wish was granted. Note the soft outlines, this was a
radical move in Italy in the 1800’s and got some of his
paintings rejected by the church.
If one flower has both the male and female reproductive structures on it, it is called a perfect flower - I wonder if they have inflated egos.  This makes them true hermaphrodites. The term comes from the Greek mythology; Hermaphroditus was the son of the Greek gods Hermes (dad) and Aphrodite (mom). Hermaphroditus (male) was fused with the nymph Salmacis (female) so that the result was a demigod with male and female characteristics.

In science we use the term more strictly; it means one individual that has both and female reproductive organs. This happens to rarely in animals. But in flowering plants it’s the rule rather than the exception.

But in some monoecious plants, the flowers aren’t perfect. Individual flowers will have either male or female reproductive parts. These are called…. you guessed it, imperfect flowers.

So, can an imperfect monoecious plant be sexually dimorphic? On one hand, it is a hermaphroditic individual plant, just like a plant with perfect flowers; both male and female reproductive organs are found in one individual. This would argue that it can’t be sexually dimorphic, just like the perfect plant.

But on the other hand, it has two different types of flowers, and they look different because one has staminate structures (anther + filament) and the other has pistillate structures (pistil = ovary + stigma + style). Because of this, the two types of flowers are different morphs (different shaped versions), and that makes them sexually dimorphic. Does it matter that they’re on the same individual plant? I leave that argument to you.


The top line drawing is a perfect flower, both male and
female. The bottom drawings are of a male (left) and
female flower. These can exist on the same plant –
monoecious imperfect, or on dioecious plants. It’s not
quite this simple, but wait until next week for that.
That takes care of the hermaphrodite majority, but about 6% of angiosperms are what is called dioecious (two houses). They have individuals with male flowers and individuals with female flowers. Now we’re talking sexually dimorphic for sure; different individuals of a species with different characteristics based on sex. Sounds just like the animals we talked about last week.

Sexual dimorphism in plants comes in two main flavors, just like in animals. One is obvious; differences in reproductive organs (primary sex characteristics) will make the flowers look different. The second type is more interesting. You can have difference in characteristics not directly related to reproductive organs (secondary sex characteristics). Dimorphisms could include the shape, color, number, or smell of the flowers, or even differences in the vegetation of the plants. Who knew that plant sexual characteristics could be so complicated?

In general, male flowers are smaller and more numerous than female flowers. Think about it. Males need to spread as much pollen as possible, whereas females spend much more energy to make fruits and seeds. Just like in animals, males make lots of reproductive cells, and females make fewer – so more, smaller flowers in males makes sense.


The male soapwort flowers are on the left. They have
smaller flowers and more variability in coloring. The
female flower is on the right. The tall structures are the
pistil. Compare them to the anthers in the male flowers.
But there can be differences in individual flowers too. A 2014 study showed that in Saponaria officinalis (soapwort), an insect pollinator can discriminate between male flowers and female flowers based on shape and color (males are a little pinker).  The most successful male flowers (whose pollen got to female flowers and fertilized them) were just a little different from females, so the insect works to keep the dimorphism low.

Scent can be another dimorphism. Most often, the scent of male and female flowers is very similar; this is so they can attract the same pollinators. But an exception is Phyllanthaceaeplantsas shown in a 2013 paper. A parasitic moth is the pollinator. It gathers pollen from males, offers it to the female flowers where it lays its eggs. The larvae then eat the seeds - so the females need to be fertilized for this system to work. This means that the beetle really needs to find male flowers first.

Mated female beetles prefer the smell of the male flower, so female beetles being mated drives them to collect pollen by attracting them to the male flowers more than the female ones. Then, when it visits the female flower to lay its eggs, it brings along the pollen to ensure a food source (seeds) for the larvae.

The differences between the sexes can be seen in the plants as a whole too. Longer living dioecious plants often have males that are larger. Male seeds will be heavier and germinate earlier than females. The extra endosperm gives them a chance at establishing themselves and growing larger, and the early germination also gives them a head start on the females. So no wonder they are often bigger.


The quaking Aspen is an exception. It is long lived, but
the females are usually bigger and have more clonal
propagation. And the exception to the exception – Pando,
one of the oldest and largest organisms on Earth is a
clonal population of quaking aspens in Utah –
but they’re male!
The investment females make in fruits and seeds also keeps them smaller; they have to conserve energy for building expensive reproductive structures. A 2010 study showed that in many serotinous species (plants that release seeds after a fire), the females branch less than the males and have fewer but bigger leaves. In studying which individuals release the most seeds after a fire, those that looked least like males did the best. Saving energy by making fewer branches and leaves really does pay off, especially because the females have to invest so much in keeping the cones alive until there’s a fire.

Another example of plant size dimorphism is the Rumex hastatulus from a paper from 2012. This is a wind pollinated and wind dispersed (for seeds) plant. The male grows taller than the females early, so it's taller when the pollen is dispersed (better distance). Then the female grows more and is taller than the males when the wind disperses the seeds (better distance again). Neat how that works out.

On the other hand, plants that live shorter lives usually have females that are bigger. In the perennial plant Silene latifolia, growth and survival are same in male and female until reproduction begins, the females grow bigger and live longer. There is a live fast and die young strategy for the males– their job is done first, a lot like female spiders that eat the males after mating. By providing their mate with a meal (himself), the male spider improves the chance she will lay healthy eggs.


On the left is the male L. xanthoconusplant with flowers.
These provide the Pria beetle in the middle with nectar.
The female plant and flowers on the right are shaped
very differently and provide the beetle with shelter. It
doesn’t mean to pollinate the female, it’s just trying to
get out of the rain.
Ecology plays a role in plant sexual dimorphism as well. The environment and the pollinators can bend plants to their will. The Leucadendron xanthoconus of South Africa is pollinated by a single beetle species (Pria cinerascens) according to a 2005 study. It gets nectar and lays it’s eggs in the male, but seeks shelter from the rain in the differently shaped female flower. It only gets food from the male, and only receives shelter from the female. Even though the female doesn’t offer any nectar – the system works and therefore evolution keeps the males and females from being similar.

The same plant demonstrates another ecologically driven dimorphism.  Males that maximize their number of flowers get visited by more beetles, but the investment makes them die sooner. Bond and Maze in 1999showed that the males spend more on non-photosynthetic flowers (because they aren't green) and that these flowers cover up more of the photosynthetic leaves. The dimorphism is that the female plants live longer.

In many dioecious plants, the sex ratio is nearly 1:1 male:female.  That makes sense, unless there are longevity issues induced by one sex or the other (like females dying younger because they put more into making fruits or the example immediately above). However, in some plants the ratio may be way off. Males may be bigger, and they may make less defense toxins, therefore, they may get eaten by herbivores more. This example not withstanding, male bias is more common than female bias.


Biologically, an interesting picture. Stephen Colbert is
about six feet tall, sexually dimorphic than most females
based on height and haircut. The bald eagle has reverse
sexual size dimorphism, the females are usually larger.
And the pistachio tree is dioecious and has a sexually
dimorphic ratio; there is about one male for every
10 females.
On the other end of the scale, dimorphism can end up affecting the environment as well.  Spatial segregation of the sexes (SSS) can occur if the resources are spaced differently in the environment and the different sexes need different resources (it happens). This could lead to areas that are mostly male and areas that are mostly female. It’s not a problem unless they get so far apart that the wind or the animal pollinators don’t make it from the males to the females.

A report in 2010 stated that SSS usually works out so the males end up in areas of less resources and females in areas of more. Females need the resources more, and while the less ideal areas mean fewer competitors for the males. That’s the general rule – males are limited by competition, and females are limited by resources – think about that.

Next week, the sexual dimorphism of plants seems strange to us because we don’t really see the difference between males and females (maybe in holly plants). But it does get weirder. Animals have males, females, and hermaphrodites. But plants take it to a whole other level.






Davis, S., Dudle, D., Nawrocki, J., Freestone, L., Konieczny, P., Tobin, M., & Britton, M. (2014). Sexual Dimorphism of Staminate- and Pistillate-Phase Flowers of Saponaria officinalis (Bouncing Bet) Affects Pollinator Behavior and Seed Set PLoS ONE, 9 (4) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093615

HEMBORG,., & BOND, W. (2005). Different rewards in female and male flowers can explain the evolution of sexual dimorphism in plants Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 85 (1), 97-109 DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00477.x

Bonduriansky, R., Maklakov, A., Zajitschek, F., & Brooks, R. (2008). Sexual selection, sexual conflict and the evolution of ageing and life span Functional Ecology, 22 (3), 443-453 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01417.x

Pickup, M., & Barrett, S. (2011). Reversal of height dimorphism promotes pollen and seed dispersal in a wind-pollinated dioecious plant Biology Letters, 8 (2), 245-248 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0950

Okamoto, T., Kawakita, A., Goto, R., Svensson, G., & Kato, M. (2013). Active pollination favours sexual dimorphism in floral scent Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280 (1772), 20132280-20132280 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2280



For more information or classroom activities, see:

Monoecious/dioecious –


Spatial segregation of sexes –

Serotiny –




Boys Will Be Boys… And Then Girls

$
0
0
Biology concepts – botany, monoecious, dichogamy, imperfect and perfect flowers, self-pollination, cross-pollination, self-incompatibility, heterostyly



This clip shows the mating of hermaphroditic
leopard slugs. Each may provide male gametes
for the other, or it may just go one way. They hang
from a branch to do this, and the male reproductive
organs spiral around one another. The trait has gone
mad – in some species, the male organ has reached
92 cm long!
There are a few ways for animals to make new animals. Asexual reproduction is possible in a few species, while sexual reproduction is much more common. In between, there are the hermaphrodites. These animals carry both sets of reproductive organs.

Some gastropod (snails and such) breeding is strictly sexual; they have male and female snails (marine), while most terrestrial snails are hermaphrodites. But even then, most need another gastropod to mate with. Each hermaphrodite fertilizes the eggs of the other. There are the rare cases where a hermaphroditic slug will self-fertilize and produce clones, but this is the exception, not the rule.

These examples show that weird reproduction does take place in animals, but the plants have us beat by a long shot. Even the simple types of flower breeding systems turn out to be not so simple. Sometimes being both sexes is the easy part.

If a single flowering plant (angiosperm) can produce both male and female reproductive cells (pollen and egg), the plant is called monoecious (one house). This represents a nice tight bundle, reproduction wise. One plant can make the male gamete cells (pollen) and the female gamete (egg) – it’s a hermaphrodite. Let’s look at the types of monoecious flowering plants, maybe it's not so simple:

Monoecious perfect - These plants have flowers that contain both the male reproductive structures and the females reproductive structures, so they are said to be perfect flowers. Because they occur on the same flower, any time the plant flowers, the blooms have both female and male structures and qualities. These are true hermaphrodites.


The king flower of the apple blossom is the key to
getting good apples. It has to be pollinated for the
cluster to all produce apples. The king flower opens
first, is pretty, and smells good.
Apple trees are monoecious perfect, although most are pollinated by other apple trees, not themselves (see below). Interestingly, in order to get the most and best fruit, the king flower (the largest and first bloom of a cluster) must be pollinated and be pollinated first.

Monoecious imperfect– In the simplest form, monoecious imperfectplants have some male flowers and some female flowers, but they both bloom on the same plant. The flowers themselves aren’t hermaphroditic, but the plant is, since it has both male and female structures.

A single American chestnut tree will have both male and female flowers at the same time. Some long catkins (an arrangement of small flowers on a single stem) have only male flowers while others have male flowers at the tips and female flowers at the base.

Male and female flowers on separate individuals at the same time like with the chestnut is one form of monoecious imperfect, but there are others as well.

Gynomonoecious or andromonoecious – These are a mixing of perfect and imperfect flowers on the same plant. Gyno- means female, so these plants have imperfect female flowers AND perfect flowers at the same time. Andro- means male so, you guessed it, they have male flowers and perfect flowers.

A 2003 study of four Solanum (a large genus that includes potatoes and tomatoes) species showed that the number of male flowers compared to the number of hermaphroditic flowers can vary greatly. Some species were about 7% male flowers (weakly andromonoecious), while others were 69% male flowers (strongly andromonoecious). Weak species would change the number of male flowers produced according to how much fruit was produced, but strong species made the same number of male flowers no matter what.


The American chestnut was a towering species until
the late 1800’s when a nursery owner imported some
Japanese chestnuts that had a fungal parasite. The
American version had no immunity, and we lost these
huge trees in short order.
The small Spanish flower Silene littorea was recently (2013) found to be mostly gynomonoecious. Before this, it was thought that this species had two populations of plants, but the seed numbers and variable numbers of female flowers show that being gynomonoecious helps significantly in producing more seed with less flower investment.

Problems with Monoecy- With either perfect flowers or imperfect flowers one a single plant, it’s possible for the pollen of an individual to fertilize an egg on the same individual – self-pollination. However, self-pollination isn’t always a good thing. Self-pollination produces clones of the parent that provides both the pollen and egg. Pollen from one plant fertilizing the egg of a second individual is called cross-pollination.

Cross-pollination promotes genetic diversity. Clones tend to build up genetic mistakes, while cross-pollination help to spread genes through the population and makes the species more likely to possess genes that might help them withstand changes in the environment. Therefore, many plants take steps to prevent self-pollination and promote cross-pollination.

Heterostyly (hetero = different, and style = part of the female reproductive organ) prevents “selfing” in many animal pollinated plants. In this case, a certain species will have two morphs (shapes) of flowers. One will have a long anther (pollen producer) and a short style (where the pollen is deposited and grows down to egg). The other will have short anthers and long styles (see picture and caption to below). 


Morph 1 and Morph 2 are the same species, but different
individual plants. The large insect pollinator can easily
get pollen from A anthers (right) and deliver it to A pistils (left), but
how would it get pollen to the B pistil (right)? The reverse is true
for the smaller pollinator. Therefore, Morph 1 can pollinate
Morph 2 and vice versa, but neither can pollinate their
own morph. This is heterostyly.
A pollinator well-designed to gather pollen from a long anther would be poorly designed to accidentally (it’s almost always an accident) deliver that pollen to a short style. So it is unlikely that self-pollination will take place.

However, that same pollinator would be well-designed to deliver its pollen load to a flower with a long style, the kind found on the other morph of individuals of the species. This would promote cross-pollination. The strategy is equally successful for those pollinators best prepared to gather pollen from short anthers.

It is not known whether the move to heterostyly in some plants has been driven by genetics to avoid inbreeding or by pollinators and the need for efficient fertilization. A 2006 study in Narcissus flowers looked at both genetics and pollinator efficiency in breeding and concluded that the pollinator driven evolution was supported to a greater degree. This agrees with the pollinator hypothesis that Darwin proposed almost 150 years ago. He was pretty smart.

In other cases, the position of the flowers may discourage self-pollination. For instance, some wind pollinated fir trees have female cones up high and male cones down low. The pollen from the male flowers might travel on the wind and gain altitude to fertilize female flowers on adjacent trees, but it is extremely unlikely that the pollen would be blown straight up to fertilize the female flowers of the same tree.

The most common mechanism to prevent selfing is self-incompatibility. There are two main mechanisms of self-incompatibility; they both work at the genetic level to make sure that the pollen of a particular individual will not successfully fertilize an egg of the same plant.  


The blue pollen has one rearrangement of the
compatibility genes (S3, S4), while the red pollen has a
different rearrangement (S1, S2). If the ovule genome has
S1, S2, then S1, S2 pollen landing on the stigma will be
destroyed. S3, S4 pollen won’t be recognized and can grow
pollen tubes to fertilize the S1, S2 egg. Self pollen is
incompatible with the same egg; this promotes
cross-pollination.
Both mechanisms involve genes that can rearrange to form many slightly different gene products. One individual will have the same rearrangement of the gene in its pollen and its egg. Pollen of one type will not work with an egg of the same type. It works in the exact opposite fashion as self-recognition proteins in humans. In that case, tissues with different HLA markers are attacked as foreign; in plants, pollen and egg of the same rearrangement will be shut down.

So these are ways to prevent self pollination in perfect and imperfect monoecious plants. But monoecy can get weird on its own in an attempt to prevent selfing:

Dichogamous monoecy– This breeding system probably evolved as a way to prevent self-pollination in monoecious plants. The pollen and ovule mature at different times. This is equivalent to having a flower (plant) that can change its sex in just a short period of time, and these count as additional monoecious breeding schemes. Some animals can do this, but the change takes place over the period of a lifetime. Here were talking about in the period of a few hours.

If an individual plant can change its sex over a short period of time within one growing season, then it is called dichogamous (dicho = in two, apart, and gamous= gametes), also called sequential hermaphroditism or temporal dioecy. But which comes first male or female? If the plant first produces male flowers, then it is termed protandrous (proto = first). Protogynous is name for those that are female first. This is a great way to prevent self-fertilization and there are a couple of ways plants can employ dichogamy.

This chart will help explain the different monoecious
breeding systems. Each large circle is a population of
plants of the species. The circle with cross means female
flower, the circle with arrow means male flower, and the
circle with both means perfect flower. The line arrow
with a “t” means a change as time passes. For dichogamy,
the flowers may be perfect or imperfect, but they function
as male or female at each time point.
One system of dichogamy comes about if the flowers of the monoecious plant are perfect. In this case, the structures are all there, but the timing for maturity is different. The flowers of Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea, a mangrove shrub, are perfect and protandrous, whileCenchrus clandestinus, a Hawaiian grass, has perfect, protogynous flowers. The flowers are structurally perfect, but functionally imperfect.

In perfect protandrous plants, the pollen matures and is carried away (ind, insects, animals, etc) before the ovules mature on the same flower - so no selfing. In perfect protogynous, the opposite is true. The early maturing eggs must procure pollen from individuals who have already had mature eggs and have changed to produce pollen.

The other dichogamous possibility for monoecious plants is when they have imperfect flowers. This means that the plant would make flowers of one sex first, and then grow separate flowers of the other sex later on. The separate flowers are still on the same plant, but self-pollination isn’t possible because they aren’t there at the same time.

Corn is an imperfect, protandrous plant. This is why country kids detassel in the summer. The tassel is the male flower. If you remove it (de-tassel), it will prevent possible selfing when the female flowers come out. You can create hybrids by planting a few rows of a specific breed of male corn at the end of the rows.

It’s much harder to find an example of an imperfect, protogynous plant. In general, doesn’t it seem silly for a species to produce their female flowers first? They need pollen from the males in order to be fertilized, but if they’re all female, who provides the pollen? It doesn’t seem logical.


The left image is the female flower of corn, every silk is a
flower that can be pollinated. Each one that is will produce
a corn kernel on the ear. The right image is the male
flower, the tassel. This get pulled off by teenagers trying to
make money for that prom dress or new stereo.
The key is in the timing. Not all the individuals of a protogynous perfect population will flower exactly at the same time. So some will have moved on to being male while others are still female. This would then provide pollen for them without resorting to self-pollination.

But why no protogynous imperfectplants? The wasted energy in making purely female flowers very early when little pollen is present probably dooms this breeding system. At least with perfect protogynous, they get some benefit by dispersing pollen later from the same flower. No extra energy is consumed in producing an entirely different flower.

Duodichogamy - This system can help with the timing issue above; it’s dichogamy taken a bit further. Instead of being one sex then the other, they go back and forth and back and forth – like Mystique of the X-Men.In Bridelia retusa, a tropical tree from India, the switching between male and female occurs several times within a single week! To my mind, this is like sexual dimorphism in antlered males of some species - the antlers just keep getting bigger and bigger. Where will it all end - how many times will this plant change sex?

Next week - another mechanism for preventing self-pollination is to separate the reproductive parts to different plants. These are the dioecious plants.



Casimiro-Soriguer I, Buide ML, & Narbona E (2013). The roles of female and hermaphroditic flowers in the gynodioecious-gynomonoecious Silene littorea: insights into the phenology of sex expression. Plant biology (Stuttgart, Germany), 15 (6), 941-7 PMID: 23174011

Pérez-Barrales, R., Vargas, P., & Arroyo, J. (2006). New evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis of heterostyly: breeding systems and pollinators in Narcissus sect. Apodanthi New Phytologist, 171 (3), 553-567 DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01819.x

Miller, J., & Diggle, P. (2003). Diversification of andromonoecy in Solanum section Lasiocarpa (Solanaceae): the roles of phenotypic plasticity and architecture American Journal of Botany, 90 (5), 707-715 DOI: 10.3732/ajb.90.5.707




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Monoecy –

self-pollination and cross pollination –



The Flower Child Must Be Confused

$
0
0
Biology concepts – dioecy, heterodichogamy, diphasy, plant breeding systems, evolution, botany


Bananas grow from cuttings of the previous banana
plant. Each plant produces just one bunch and is then
cut down. None of the bananas grown by Chiquita or
Dole are known to wear pajamas. Maybe the kids’
television program was a way of showing how
genetically similar we are.
Did you know that humans and bananas have about 25% of their genes in common? We share 50% of DNA sequence with this fruit, but a smaller percentage of genes. How can that be? The difference is one is sequence and the other is functional units.

DNA sequence can include of a lot of A’s, C’s, T’s, and G’s that are not in coding regions. The genes are sequences of DNA that code for a specific product, not just a run of nucleotides. The genes of the banana and man may be different in sequence (slightly to moderately), but they each code for a protein that does the same job. Overall, it’s easier to find DNA that matches outside of genes because there is so much of it (humans have about 2% of their DNA invested in genes).

Still, 25% similarity in genes is pretty amazing, though some people are truly bananas and should be better matches. In reality, we aren’t that different from any organism that descended from those first algae that moved on to land.

Our molecular biology is very similar to plants. Consider all the genes responsible for making DNA, proteins, modifying all the different biomolecules, and making energy in the form of ATP. In those ways, we are almost identical to plants. True, most plants do some things we can’t, like photosynthesis. And we do some things they can’t, like calculus and making videos of cats playing the piano, but our biochemistry is remarkably similar.

One way in which plants and animals are often different is that about 99% of animal species have two separate groups of individuals – guys and gals. Sure, there are the exceptions, and we have talked about some, but for the most part animal species have separate sexes.


These are some of the ways plants can be dioecious.
The heterodichogamy shown is the simplest form. It
can also occur with duodichogamy (two switches on
one plant) or can involve just one set of individuals
while the other stays a single sex all the time.
The flowering plant world on the other hand is made up of mostly hermaphroditic species. Over 93% of angiosperms assume one of the monoecious breeding systems we talked about in the previous post. Even though the rest may be exceptions, they’re not all the same exception. Just like how we described the several ways to be monoecious last week, there are several systems in which the sexes are divided amongst different individuals – called dioecy. Having separate male and female plants makes an angiosperm dioecious.

But before we get to the ways of being dioecious, we better look at one mysterious exception, called subdioecy. It’s hard to define, because it’s hard to tell if it is real or not. Subdioecy is really just what scientists call it when they can’t tell what they’re looking at. Most succinctly, subdioecy is when a dioecious plant has flowers that aren’t clearly male or female. And that may be because the flower hasn’t decided what it wants to be, speaking on an evolutionary scale, of course.

Flowers that are in the middle of becoming bisexual after being unisexual for a long time, or those hermaphrodites that are just starting to lose male or female structures will be hard to define as male, female, or bisexual. The structures might be there, but be small, they may not look like the typical structures, or they may be there but be non-functional.

All these would be reasons to classify a plant as subdioecious. However, if a species keeps functional hermaphrodites and its unisexual plants in a stable system (over time), then that’s another exception that we can talk about next week. Three sexes, you say?

But for now, let’s move on to the more definable exceptions, the first of which is the situation when there are clear-cut female and male plants.

Dioecy– About 4% of flowering plants have individual male and female plants, but the incidence is higher on island systems than on continents. Hmmm. We talked a couple of weeks ago about how areas that are relatively resource poor, ie. dirt with fewer nutrients or areas of less water or higher stress, seem to promote development of maleness. It turns out that they promote dioecy as well.


Tropical islands and palm trees; they go hand in
hand. Island conditions are most suited to dioecious
plants so there are more there than on continents.
All the date pam species are dioecious, but the
coconut is an exception, it’s monoecious.
Island soil is often poor in nutrients, maybe because so many islands come from lava rock and lava has fewer nutrients. Or maybe it's because islands have fewer species, and that means that more individuals are competing for the same nutrients, which makes those nutrients more scarce. Third, islands are more susceptible to nutrient leaching and erosion, so they can lose their nutrients to the sea.

Whatever the reason, it seems that dioecious plants compete better in nutrient poor or stressed soils. If this is true, then you would also expect to find a higher than normal percentage of dioecious plants in tropical rain forests and along sandy beaches near salt water (high salt is a stressful environment). Does it work out that way?

Yep, many studies have discussed a higher percentage of dioecious plants on island systems. A 2005 paper extended this to a portion of SE Brail that is resource poor because it is rain forest (most of the nutrients are tied up in large trees) and because it is sandy soil near the beaches. In this locale, fully 32% of species are dioecious – that’s a huge number compared with a normal range of 4-6%.

The reason may be that by dividing the duties of the plants - males producing pollen and females producing ovules and then seeds – the resource needs of any one plant is lower. Some of each will survive and keep the species going. Once again, it’s related to males doing better in stressed situations. 

Androdioecous– This breeding system is related to that situation above. In androdioecy, there are male plants and hermaphroditic plants. The unisexual males can colonize more territory and produce a lot of pollen to ensure that the bisexual flowers get pollinated. On the other hand, a single hermaphrodite can produce several plants on its own, so it is good for colonizing new territory.


Dwarf Ginseng (Panax trifolius) has two different
types of flowers, but three different plants. One plant
has no flowers, so I can’t show them two you. The
flowers on the male plant have one short style, while
those on the hermaphrodite plant have three or four
longer styles.
An example of an androdioecious plant is dwarf ginseng. This exceptional plant is even weirder than just being androdioecious. It comes in small, medium, and large sizes. The small plant is sterile, it doesn’t have male or female flowers. The medium sized plant is the male, and is the one Goldilocks likes best. The largest is the hermaphrodite and is the only one to produce seeds (only one with female flowers).

Gynodioecy– I’m guessing you can figure out what this system must be like. Female plants and hermaphroditic plants coexist in one population. This system is more advantaged when resources are plentiful, so in areas of fertile soil, these species will gain a better foothold and out compete gynodioecious species.

In fact, gynodioecy is much more common than androdioecy. This may result from a pollen saving strategy, especially in areas where nitrogen is limited (pollen uses a lot of nitrogen). More likely, it is preferred because it gives more chances for seed production (more females). But whatever the case, both gynodioecy and androdioecy are considered to be important systems because they probably represent a transition between monoecious and dioecious systems.

This begs the questions as to which was first, monoecy or dioecy. Several recent reviews talk about the evolution of dioecy from monoecious plants, with stop-overs in gynomonoecy, andromonoecy, gynodioecy or andromonoecy. A 2012 review shows that we have good evidence for the first step – monoecy to gynodioecy, but little evidence of the second step – gynodioecy to dioecious.


Z. jujubai is a tropical plant that is heterodichogamous.
It’s fruits are dried and eaten as treats. This is where the
name for jujube and jujyfruit candies came from – mostly
from the colors and texture, not that any of the plant is in
them. Go ahead, ask your parents, they’ll remember
jujubes and jujyfruits.
But the advantage must be there, since most research shows that dioecy usually develops from monoecy, not the other way around. Cross-fertilization with increased genetic diversity is advantageous, even if it is risky. The risk is that dioecy gives just half (or so) as many plants capable of producing seeds, but is does eliminate the need for self-incompatibility strategies (see this post).

Heterodichogamy– This breeding system is the dioecious version of dichogamay we talked about last week. Here, the males turn into females and the females plants become male, but the two populations are out of phase. The timing is crucial so that cross pollination is accomplished.

An example is the Zizyphus jujuba. This tree has individuals that are male in morning and female in afternoon. Another set of individuals in the same population are male in late afternoon and female in morning. So there is always a female to accept the pollen being made by males and the possibility of self-pollination is reduced almost entirely.

A more perplexing example of heterodichogamous breeding system is found in a 2014 study of Platycarya strobilacea (family Juglandaceae). Most plants in this family of walnut trees are wind pollinated, but in this one case, pollination occurs via a thrip insect.


Monty Python acted diphasic. Sometimes they were
male, sometimes they were female. It all depended on
what the script called for. Many species of maple tree
are diphasic. One year an individual may be male, the
next year maybe female – it all depends on the
environment. But as the picture shows above, when
happy, they usually opt for female.
One of the two populations P. strobilacea fluctuates from female to male over a short period of time. The other population starts out male and turns female just as you would suspect, but then turns back to male within the same growing season. This is a heterodichogamous plant with a duodichogamous (two switches) male! The first and second male flowers look different and the thrip insect pollinator prefers the second version of the male flower. This works out well, since it times out better with the appearance of female flowers on the other individuals.

It may be that the dichogamy in dioecious plants occurs in just one of the populations of individuals. Now the names start getting long. Heterodichogamous androdioecious– one population is male while the other is first male then female. Some maple trees were thought to exist in this system, but a 2007 study by Renner cast doubt on the earlier observations and reclassified many as dichogamous or duodichogamous monecious (see last weeks post). On the other hand, there are no recorded instances of heterodichogamous gynodioecious (females and females that turn male). Do you have any ideas why?

Next week, a final flower breeding exception. Not one, not two, but three stable sexes in one population of flowering plants. Trioecy is the reason we have dyed silk and tropical fruit salad.





Fukuhara, T., & Tokumaru, S. (2013). Inflorescence dimorphism, heterodichogamy and thrips pollination in Platycarya strobilacea (Juglandaceae) Annals of Botany, 113 (3), 467-476 DOI: 10.1093/aob/mct278

Spigler, R., & Ashman, T. (2011). Gynodioecy to dioecy: are we there yet? Annals of Botany, 109 (3), 531-543 DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcr170

Matallana, G., Wendt, T., Araujo, D., & Scarano, F. (2005). High abundance of dioecious plants in a tropical coastal vegetation American Journal of Botany, 92 (9), 1513-1519 DOI: 10.3732/ajb.92.9.1513

Renner SS, Beenken L, Grimm GW, Kocyan A, & Ricklefs RE (2007). The evolution of dioecy, heterodichogamy, and labile sex expression in Acer. Evolution; international journal of organic evolution, 61 (11), 2701-19 PMID: 17894810



For more information classroom activities, see:

Dioecy –
see last week’s list of links (here)

Evolution of dioecy –

Plants Aren’t Just Male Or Female

$
0
0
Biology concepts – trioecy, sea anemone, sex determination systems, hermaphroditism, ecology, polyploidy


We think of animals has having two sexes, male
and female. Of course there are a few
hermaphrodites too. But…. There are animals with
three sexes or even four. The wrasse, like this sling
jaw, is a fish with one female sex but three different
males. We are finding that plants can have even more
complicated breeding systems, including having
three different sexes.
In the past two weeks we have discovered that there are at least six different ways for a flowering plant to be monoecious (have male and female flowers on the same individual). We have also seen that there are at least five different ways for a plant to be dioecious, with male plants and female plants living separately.

So, 94% of flowering plants are monoecious and the rest are some version of dioecious, right? Nope. A few exist stably in three morphs: male, female, and hermaphrodite. This makes them trioecious (tri = three, and oecious = house).  The males and females can’t exist on their own, but could exist if it were just the two of them. The hermaphrodite could exist on its own, but it doesn’t. All three are present in a population and it stays that way. Stability of the three sex system is what separates trioecy from the transitional subdioecy we talked about last week.

It would be easy to mistake one of the dioecious breeding systems last week for trioecy depending on when you observed the population, and it has happened. In fact, most descriptions of trioecy have turned out to be dioecious populations in the midst of a switch of some kind (like heterodichogamous androdioecy), for example.

But some do exist. Atriplex canescens (the fourwinged saltbush) is a bush that lives in arid areas. Living in dry climates will be a recurring theme as we talk about trioecious plants. We have talked about this bush as an exception in the realm of polyploidy, and who knows, that may be involved in it being trioecious as well.

Saltbush has three different morphs of bushes, in terms of sex chromosomes and flowers; males, females and hermaphrodites. Trioecious it is; but this doesn’t mean that all the populations of saltbush are trioecious.

Add to this that fourwing saltbush can be diploid (2n) tetraploid (4n), or hexaploid (6n), and as we discussed previously, these different genotypes can be found in three different microenvironments. The hexaploid version is found in the driest areas, the 2n plants live closest to water and the 4n’s are in between.


The sex ratio in plants can change according to
environment (see text). We do it too. In war, more girls
are born than average, but after wars, more boys are
born. War brings death, so evolution has equated stress
as a need for animals that can have offspring – females.
In peace, better mates can be sought, so more males can
be born for more competition.
This makes one wonder: could ploidy, environment and sexual breeding system be interrelated? A paper from way back in the 80’s looked at this very question. They found that the male:female ratios did vary according to ploidy, with diploid being about 1:1 and the tetraploid and hexaploid populations being more likely to have higher numbers of female plants.

Location also made a difference in number of each morph. Populations in more northern parts of the range were likely to have more male plants and fewer hermaphrodites. Two things jumped out at me. One, the authors didn’t address whether the location with respect to dryness. I would love to know if populations in the dry areas were more or less likely to be stably trioecious, or if the stress of being thirsty affects the female:male ratio.

Second, the authors looked at the sex ratios in the different ploidies. Everything seemed to follow a pure X/Y determination, except for the hermaphrodite plants. Since the sex determining genes for dioecious plants haven’t been determined yet, who can say what effect an XXXXXY, XXXXYY, or XXXYYY hexaploid might have on sex determination. 

Papaya (Caricapapaya) is a trioecious plant and points out some the interesting aspects of studying plant breeding systems and sex determining genes. In fact, papaya may teach us about what makes males male and females female. The papaya females are XX, males are XY, but hermaphrodites have a slightly different Y, called Y(h).

Papaya grows as either dioecious or gynodioecious in cultivated fields because we plant them that way, but all three morphs exist. Why two ways to grow them? The fruit of the unisexual females is different from those of the hermaphrodite. Papain is an enzyme obtained only from papaya. It’s used as a meat tenderizer, to remove hair from hides before tanning, and to treat silk and wool before dyeing so that they will take up more color.


The papaya has sexual trimorphism (I made that up).
The male flower on on the left, the female is in the
middle. The hermaphrodite flower has a more bulbous
carpel than the female. The fruits are dimorphic. The
fruit from the female is rounder and has more papain.
We eat the fruit of the hermaphrodite.
The fruit produced by the female plants has more, and more active, papain than the fruit from the hermaphroditic plants, so this is one reason why some growers grow dioecious fields and some grow hermaphrodites only (they kill off the female plants once they identify their sex). The fruits of the hermaphrodites are usually longer and narrower, as opposed to rounder for the fruits from the unisexual female flowers. The papaya in the grocery store is from hermaphrodite plants.

The seeds of the hermaphrodite fruit may be hermaphroditic or female (do the Punnet square, YY males are lethal). This presents a problem to papaya growers who only want to plant hermaphroditic seeds. Consumers are used to a certain look for their papayas, both in shape and color, so fruit growers want as many hermaphroditic plants and as few females as possible. In their opinion, females are just a waste of resources and time.

Farmers plant several seeds in each hole, and wait until the plants are old enough to tell the sexes apart (they flower). Then they cut down all the females and keep the hermaphrodites. This added time and effort costs money, time, and reduces the initial output of the hermaphrodite plants. What the growers need is a way to produce only hermaphrodite seeds.

It would be helpful if they could engineer seeds to be hermaphrodite, but to do this they first have to identify the sex determining genes on the sex chromosomes. This is especially important because we haven’t identified the sex determining genes in any dioecious plant, so this work would be important on two counts.


We growers plant papaya for eating. They grow several
all together until they can tell the hermaphrodites from
the females. They chop out the females so they won’t
stunt the growth of the bisexuals. The trunk isn’t woody
like a tree, it is more like a stem. It’s hollow in the center.
Recent papers have started to identify the sex determining regions of the Y chromosome because they have the Y and Yh to compare against one another. Sequencing of Y and Yh show that they have lots of chloroplast DNA. One, this shows that the hermaphrodite form is stable because the chloroplast DNA is degrading from the Yh very slowly.

Two, this shows that they are young – Yh is only about 4000 years old and is derived from the Y chromosome. This is about the time that human domesticated the papaya, so hermaphrodite fruits of this type are probably a result of domestication.

And three, parts of the Y chromosome don’t recombine during mitosis or meiosis. This points to the areas that are important for sex determination; the MSY (male specific region of Y) and HSY (hermaphrodite specific region of Y). So now they can look at just these regions. It turns out that that MSY and HSY are 99.6% identical. Any differences would be good candidates genes for the suppression of the female reproductive structures that creates male flowers from hermaphrodite flowers.

In fact, they found one gene called SVP (short vegetative phase) that is different between Y and Yh. The SVP in the HSY is truncated (shortened) as compared to the MSY version. The hypothesis is that the SVP suppresses the female ovule formation in the male, but the truncated version has lost function and this is why the hermaphrodite version allows for the formation of the female structures. Find out what genes SVP controls and you could then make all the seeds from hermaphrodite plants be hermaphroditic. No more need to weed out the females.

How about one more example of trioecy in plants? This one shows how the environment is important in determining which breeding system will win out. In a species of Sonoran cactus (Pachycereus pringlei), the population can exist as trioecous or gynodioecious. It is pollinated by the nectar-eating bat, Leptonycteris curasoae, but not all populations of P. pringlei live near a bat cave.


We think of bats eating insects or fruit, or even drinking
blood. But many bats are nectarivorous – they drink the
sugary fluid from flowers. As such, they are important
pollinators. Here we see how their tongue is designed to
pull out the nectar from deep within the flower.
Those populations within 50 km of a L. curasoge cave are trioecious. But further away than 50 km from their pollinators, the plants are gynodioecious. Even weirder, the hermaphrodites that are fertile are self-compatible, they have no mechanisms to prevent self-pollination. The unisexual plants would need some competitive edge in this case, or the hermaphrodites would have such an advantage that soon all the plants would be their progeny, and therefore the entire population would be monoecious perfect.

The unisexual plants do have an advantage, they produce 1.6-3.0x more pollen or seeds than the hermaphrodite plants; this is the only way they can compete with the perfect flowering plants. That’s O.K. for females, because they can be fertilized by either the hermaphrodites or the males, but the only way to make more unisexual males is for their pollen to get to females. What might account for their ability to survive in the population – bats.

Living near the bats provides much more opportunity for the unisexual males to be visited. Since they make more pollen then the perfect flowers, the increased number of pollinators is enough to put them over the hump and keep them successful enough to remain in those populations. But if the pollinators are too far away to give them a required number of visits, the males slowly die out and you end up with the gynodioecious populations.


Nemo was one of about 30 species of clownfish,
Amphprion ocellaris, to be exact. The different species
are very specific with the sea anemones in which they
live. Now we know that the sea anemone A. diaphana is
trioecious. I am wondering if the clownfish prefer the
males, females, or hermaphrodites. Yet another area of
study to be carried out.
For zoologists, this discussion of plant breeding systems might seem trivial, but it’s not. A 2014 paper identified a trioecious animal, a sea anemone. Aiptasia diaphanais a cnidarian, as are all sea anemones. You would recognize them from Looking for Nemo; clownfish like Nemo and his dad live inside the tentacles of a sea anemone. They are immune to the venom in the anemone nematocysts, while other small fish would be stung, killed, and eaten.

Most animals have males and females. There are rare animal species that exist as only females (those that undergo parthenogenesis). Some animals exist as hermaphrodites, but A. diaphana is the first animal shown to exist as all three – males, females, and hermaphrodites in a single population.

The researcher in this study collected the propagules (asexual offspring) and allowed them to grow up. They then examined the sex chromosomes and sex steroid levels and determined that some were guys, some were girls, and some were hermaphrodites. Maybe studying plants can help us with animal research after all.

Next week, we've talked enough about the dimorphisms in plants. Back to the animal world with some of the most amazing exceptions to bilateral symmetry; their exactly half male and half female.




Armoza-Zvuloni, R., Kramarsky-Winter, E., Loya, Y., Schlesinger, A., & Rosenfeld, H. (2014). Trioecy, a Unique Breeding Strategy in the Sea Anemone Aiptasia diaphana and Its Association with Sex Steroids Biology of Reproduction, 90 (6), 122-122 DOI: 10.1095/biolreprod.113.114116

VanBuren, R., & Ming, R. (2013). Organelle DNA accumulation in the recently evolved papaya sex chromosomes Molecular Genetics and Genomics, 288 (5-6), 277-284 DOI: 10.1007/s00438-013-0747-7

VanBuren R, Zeng F, Chen C, Zhang J, Wai CM, Han J, Aryal R, Gschwend AR, Wang J, Na JK, Huang L, Zhang L, Miao W, Gou J, Arro J, Guyot R, Moore RC, Wang ML, Zee F, Charlesworth D, Moore PH, Yu Q, & Ming R (2015). Origin and domestication of papaya Yh chromosome. Genome research, 25 (4), 524-33 PMID: 25762551

Ueno, H., Urasaki, N., Natsume, S., Yoshida, K., Tarora, K., Shudo, A., Terauchi, R., & Matsumura, H. (2014). Genome sequence comparison reveals a candidate gene involved in male–hermaphrodite differentiation in papaya (Carica papaya) trees Molecular Genetics and Genomics, 290 (2), 661-670 DOI: 10.1007/s00438-014-0955-9




Sorry, I tried to find more information or classroom activities for trioecy, but there isn't much out there. 

Half Male, Half Female, Completely Weird

$
0
0
Biology concepts – sex determination system, gynandromorphs, non-disjunction, mitosis, bilateral symmetry, chimera, mosaicism



Ardhanarishvara is just form of the god Shiva.
As a male, he is considered the ultimate man,
James Garner mixed with a little Steve McQueen.
Parvati, his wife, wanted to share his experiences,
so he became half her. That’s one
progressive marriage.
In the Hindu faith, Shiva is the destroyer. Anything that has a beginning must have and end, so as Brahma made the world Shiva must destroy it so that it can be remade. On a more positive note, Shiva is also the god of change, making people better versions of themselves by destroying the ego and bad habits.

Shiva is male and celibate, although he has a female consort named Parvati (aka. Shakti, Devi, or Uma). There is also a deity called Ardhanarishvara, which is a half male/half female representation of Shiva + Parvati. The icon is found in most temples to Shiva, but this deity rarely has temples dedicated to him/herself.

Evolution chose to go the other way with nature. In more complex animals, the sexes are separated and join energies to reproduce. In biological terms, it’s a matter of increasing genetic diversity, the source of mutations and drift for natural selection.

However, like Ardhanarishvara, nature sometimes gives us a mixture; a normally two sex species will produce an individual that is part male and part female. And sometimes they're exactly half and half. This is going to take some explaining.

Every once in a while, some embryos have a mistake in mitosis. When the chromosomes line up for random assortment and portioning into the daughter cells, things can go wrong. Once in a while, two chromatids (the two copies of a replicated chromosome) may get pulled into the same daughter cell instead pulled apart with one going to each daughter (called a non-disjunction event).

This produces one cell with too many copies of that chromosome, and one cell with too few. Both outcomes can cause problems. Sometimes, the problem is just cosmetic; sometimes it’s deadly.


Gene loss can come from losing a part of one
chromosome, or you might lose the whole
chromosome (monosomy). It could occur from a
non-disjunction or from some toxic event. A 2015
studyshows that smoking can cause a loss of the Y
chromosome in some cells. This makes men more
at risk for some cancers due to smoking (those
outside the lung).  Still want a cigarette?
On the other hand, on very rare occasions a chromosome will be lost during mitosis (chromosome loss event). It ends up next to that sock you can’t find in the washer. Who knows where it is – it just ain’t where it ought to be. One daughter cell has the right number of chromosomes and the other has one too few. Again, the consequences can range from small to really big.

A third possibility exists, where a mutation occurs in one chromatid after replication, so that even if the mitosis is normal (which it almost always is) one daughter will have a mutation (one normal and one mutated gene on the two chromosomes of the same type) and the other won’t (two normal genes on two normal chromosomes).

From then on, every time the daughter cells divide they increase the number of mutated and normal cells. The animal, if it survives to be born, will be a chimera (a mixture of two genotypes). The original chimera was a Greek mythical figure made from the parts of many animals and which breathed fire. It was a half-brother to the Hydra and Cerberus, the three-headed dog. Here it means something less menacing, but just as interesting.

Special circumstances can bring special kinds of chimeras. Which type is formed depends on when the mutation, non-disjunction, or chromosome loss occurs. In some animals, the first cell division after fertilization establishes right and left halves of the animal. Every progeny cell from one of the first daughters will be one side of the body, while every cell coming from the other original daughter will be on the other half of the animal.


The lobster on the top is a mosaic, the mutation
which changed the pigment occurred at a point when
some mutated and some non-mutated cells were on
each bilateral half of the embryo, so there are patches
of each. The bottom version had a mutation that
occurred precisely as the embryo was determining
right and left sides.
If the chromosome change or gene mutation occurs at this point, then exactly one half of the animal will have the change and the other half won’t. This is a bilateral chimera. On the other hand, of the mutation/change occurs at some other point, the there will be patches of one type of cell and patches of the other. This is called a mosaic (see picture to the right).

A 2013 review talks about mutations in different populations of cells and the right left isolation of some mutations. The authors point out that in bilateral chimeras, it is easy to study subtle effects of the gene mutation – one half displays the mutation, and the other half doesn’t. A single animal (could be a person) can serve as the experimental model AND  the control.

For example, in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) the males are XY and the females are XX. If there was chromosome loss early in development, with a single X lost in one daughter cell, there will be XX daughter cells and X (called X0) daughter cells. X0 cells are male because the primary sex determining is located on the X chromosome. In this case just described, the XX cells are female and the X0 cells are male, in the same animal!

This animal would be a gynandromorph chimera. The word is very telling, since gyno = female and andro = male. This is different from a hermaphrodite. The hermaphroditic animal has two sets of genitalia, one female and one male (whether they work or not is another question). In a gynandromorph, the two cell populations of the entire animal show different sex chromosomes.


The patterning on the thorax and abdomen is a bit
hard to see, but the eyes are easily picked out on the
gynandromorphic fruit fly. The pigment genes are
on the sex chromosome.
Gynandromorphs are extremely rare. In fact, they have been demonstrated in only two groups, but this is preliminary. Remember how we talked about animal sexual dimorphism a few weeks ago? Well, it’s only in sexual dimorphic animal species that you would actually notice gynandromorphs (of course, there are exceptions).  

Birds and arthropods are the two animal groups where we have seen gynandromorphs. We gave the example of fruit flies above. You can check out the picture of one to the left. This is specific example of gynandromorph, a bilateral gynandromorph. The left side is female and the right half is male.

In different systems of embryonic development, chimeras can develop side to side (bilateral), front to back (polar), or corner to corner (oblique). This is if the mutation or change in chromosome or gene number takes place at exactly the right mitotic event that divides an animal. If it is any of the other time, the animal will be a mosaic.

In the bilateral gynandromorphic fruit fly above, the color of the eyes is different on each side, as is the body coloring and some other characteristics. This is because the secondary sex characteristics that determine sexual dimorphism are linked to the sex chromosomes.


Spiders have funky sex-determination systems, but
they can still have gynandromorphs. The coloring is
different, but there’s more. It is hard to see, but only
the male side (purplish) has the palp organ growing
on the second appendage for the transfer of
reproductive cells. Image via: spider silk stockings
But wait – normal male and female fruit flies both have red eyes. Here one is red but the other is white. That’s because the gene for eye color and body color pattern in fruit flies is carried on the X chromosome too. If the loss of a chromosome leaves that side of the body with only one X (XO male) and the X it has carries the recessive white eye color gene, then that eye will be white. The other half (XX female) might have dominant red and recessive white eye genes on its two X chromosomes, so that eye would be red.

Is a bilateral difference in coloration enough to call an animal bilaterally asymmetric? They are phenotypically (how they look outwardly) asymmetric, but you cut them in half the silhouettes would be exactly the same (body plan is still symmetric). You can argue amongst yourselves as to what makes an animal bilaterally asymmetric.

Gynandromorphs in vertebrates are extremely rare. The reason for this is that sex characteristics aren’t only controlled by genes on the sex chromosomes. They are also under the control of hormones. But gynandromorphy does occur in birds – they’re vertebrates, but different somehow. No one is quite sure why gynandromorphs are possible for them.

It could be that the mistake comes when multiple male reproductive cells are successful in fertilizing one egg cell. When the fertilized egg cell divides, the daughters would probably be asymmetric with respect to sex chromosomes. Since the sex chromosomes control the production of the reproductive organs, and those organs then make the hormones, you can see how the two are linked.


The gynandromorphic chicken on the left is more a
mosaic than completely bilateral. The male side (your
right) has bigger breast muscle, leg spur, bigger wattle
and white feathers (see the sporadic darker feathers –
it’s a mosaic). A 2010 study showed that if you
transplanted male cells on to the female side, they
retained their secondary sex characteristics –hormones
ain’t everything. The cardinal on the right is striking –
the perfect Ball State University mascot.
The key is in determining which of the sexually dimorphic traits are under strictly genetic control and which are under hormonal control. A study in a gynandromorphic finch in 2003 showed that not everything is hormones. The brains of the males and females are different (in part this determines the song the bird sings) and gynandromorphic finches have brains that are half male and half female in structure. Even with hormones that circulate throughout the body, the brains are still different. The finch of the study sang a male song and mated with a female (no offspring). The male behaviors were controlled by the male part of the brain.

A very rare gynandromorphic cardinal was spotted and subsequently studied for 40 days from afar. The paper reporting this study stated that the bird never sang, never drew the attention of other birds, and never mated. It was a complete loner. But could he/she mate?

Most female birds have one horn of the uterus (left side) that is functional while the other is small and nonfunctional (makes them lighter for flight). Male birds usually have one long testis that is functional, the right one. Since neither male or female birds (most of them) have external reproductive organs, then a gynandromorph bird where the left half is female and the right half is male might actually have a shot at being fertile. It would all depend on how the hormone battle played out.

However, gynandromorphs in mammals don’t happen. The sex hormones control too much of the systems and flow throughout entire body, so you can’t really keep secondary sex characteristics limited to a geographically determined set of cells, even if the sex chromosomes are different in the cells.


Butterflies show sexual dichromatism (different colors
in males and females) and well as different morphologies
of wing (shapes), The gynandromorphs display both, so
they are truly bilaterally asymmetric. Butterflies have an
XX and XY (XO) sex determination system like fruitflies,
except here the XX’s are male.
But there are some characteristics that are hormone independent. Some sex characteristics are set BEFORE the sex determining genes on the sex chromosomes are turned on (reviewed here). The sex characteristic is a default, and therefore is seen both males and females despite later hormone differences. That’s why men have nipples. Nippled is the default state, no nipples isn’t possible. And three nipples is just weird.

The example I like to give for the bilateral gynandromorphy that shows true bilateral asymmetry is butterflies. The male and female often have different coloration and wing shape. This makes them sexually dichromatic within one animal but also bilaterally asymmetric.

Next week we’ll back to the butterflies and asymmetry. There’s one butterfly who is attractive to the girls precisely because he’s asymmetric.



Renfree, M., Chew, K., & Shaw, G. (2014). Hormone-Independent Pathways of Sexual Differentiation Sexual Development, 8 (5), 327-336 DOI: 10.1159/000358447

Dumanski, J., Rasi, C., Lonn, M., Davies, H., Ingelsson, M., Giedraitis, V., Lannfelt, L., Magnusson, P., Lindgren, C., Morris, A., Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Tiensuu Janson, E., Lind, L., Pedersen, N., Ingelsson, E., & Forsberg, L. (2014). Smoking is associated with mosaic loss of chromosome Y Science, 347 (6217), 81-83 DOI: 10.1126/science.1262092

Zhao, D., McBride, D., Nandi, S., McQueen, H., McGrew, M., Hocking, P., Lewis, P., Sang, H., & Clinton, M. (2010). Somatic sex identity is cell autonomous in the chicken Nature, 464 (7286), 237-242 DOI: 10.1038/nature08852

Peer, B., & Motz, R. (2014). Observations of a Bilateral Gynandromorph Northern Cardinal ( ) The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 126 (4), 778-781 DOI: 10.1676/14-025.1

Ma, K. (2013). Embryonic left-right separation mechanism allows confinement of mutation-induced phenotypes to one lateral body half of bilaterians American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 161 (12), 3095-3114 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36188




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Sex-determination system –

Gynandromorphy -



The Ugly Butterfly Gets The Girl

$
0
0
Biology concepts – fluctuating asymmetry, mate selection, honest signal, directional asymmetry



Facial symmetry supposedly plays a role
in physical beauty, but may represent
developmental stability, an ability to resist
disease, and of genetic strength.
The reasons that one human picks another as a mate are unique to the individual; personal history, social mores, and biology all play a role. No matter what e-Harmony or Match.com tell you, a complete understanding of how two people match for life is truly unknowable. Do opposites attract in a meeting of the minds? Is it all about chemistry and the way someone smells? Do big muscles and child-bearing hips play a central role?

Bilateral facial symmetry is thought to play a role in what people think is pretty, and pretty plays a role in mate selection. Why? Because symmetry implies a stable embryologic development and good genes – or maybe not. As Shakespeare wrote in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, “The course of true love never did run smooth;” it applies here.

Bilateral asymmetry takes three forms; fluctuating asymmetry, directional asymmetry, or antisymmetry. In terms of humans and pretty faces, it’s fluctuating asymmetry that we’re talking about.

Take a sharpie and draw a line from the top of your head down to the split in your legs – no, don’t really do it, this is just a thought demonstration. If you were to measure the distance from that midline to the same point on each of your eyes or ears or any body part, the length on the right will be close to the length on the left, but probably not exactly the same.

The same would be true if you measure the heights from the floor to the bottom of some body part like your eyes, or if you measure the length of fingers on each hand. The differences represent fluctuating asymmetry (FA), and your neighbor’s will be different from your own – we say that FA is what gives faces character.


President Lincoln had a defect called facial
micronesia. The left side of his face was much
smaller than the right. The middle image
above is his face. The left image is his right
side flipped and placed against his right side.
The right image is made from two left halves of
his face. Everyone’s right face and left face
look different; his is just a greater than average
difference.
Your body has a plan that determines where each eye or ear will go, and in a perfect world, it would be exactly the same spot on each side of the midline. But your genes don’t control the implementation of the body plan – what you end up with in terms of symmetry is based on the environment in the womb and how well your genetics can compensate for it.

In other words, the more instability there is in the developmental environment, the higher the FA could be. What might stop fluctuating asymmetry from becoming large? Some scientists believe it to be good genes. The instability in the womb could come from disease, toxins, parasites, drugs, stress… who know how many things might be involved.

But if your immune system is strong – partly a genetic trait, then perhaps you could control in utero diseases and FA could be kept to a minimum. For just about any stressor you can imagine, there could be a genetic response that, if healthy and strong, could minimize the damage from the stressor.

In terms of picking a mate, unconsciously sensing low levels of FA suggests to your primitive brain that the genes of this individual might be more adapted to the environment - good potential parent. And that’s all that really matters to an organism at the basal level – having strong offspring.


A 2005 study in Jamaican teenagers showed that
those teens that were rated as better dancers had
less FA. As always, cause and effect is elusive.
Did symmetry make them better dancers, or
 were they perceived as better dancers because
they were more symmetric? Regardless, good
dancers do have a reproductive advantage.
A 2014 study concluded that males with less body FA are stronger with respect to hand grip. They suggest that since strength is a quality used in mate selection and male competition, increased strength may be one reason why symmetric males are considered better mates – they win out in more intra- and intersexual competitions (they're more appealing and win more fights). Just how symmetry brings strength was not discussed. Together, symmetries are considered to reflect fitness, so in terms of non-verbal communication to potential mates, they are considered honest signals, traits that represent truth about the possessor.

A 2012 study in rhesus monkeys built upon the result of a previous experiment in that macaques stare at symmetric faces longer than faces with higher FA. This was supposed to mean that they preferred the symmetric faces. And there is evidence to suggest that our brain does find symmetry in objects, scenes, and art more pleasurable.

So the 2012 study measured both the FA and the health of female macaques. Using veterinary health standards, number of wounds and weight gain over first four years of life, the females with less FA had the best health. This supported the hypothesis that better genes result in better health.

To my mind, there is also the possibility that less FA leads to being treated better within the group, which results in better overall health. Since primates prefer symmetric images, a symmetric face (the seat of social communication) might result in more food offered, fewer fights, and/or less stress – and therefore a better overall health rating. This idea suggests that better health is a result of symmetry, not the other way around. In this case, wouldn’t facial symmetry be a dishonest signal? Is anyone studying this?

There is evidence that supports this notion, or at least lessens the strength of the symmetry and fitness hypothesis. A 2015 study in Senegal found no link between malaria rates and FA in teenagers. This suggests that FA doesn’t predispose to malaria (lack of fitness meaning higher susceptibility), and that malaria does not increase FA.


FA isn’t just a measure of “beauty.” A 2013 study
showed that urban lizards display more FA than
rural lizards. The hypothesis is that urban living
increases exposure to stress and pollutants, and
this manifests as increased FA. If true, tracking FA
could be used a measure of pollution and its effect
on wildlife.
Likewise, a 2011 paper showed that poverty was linked to increased FA. This is a touchy subject. The study found higher FA in young males from the poverty stricken sections of Ankara, Turkey. Does this mean that the stress of poverty destabilized the developmental environment of males, either in utero or afterward? Or does it mean that the stress of poverty increases FA? Does it mean that people with weaker genomes end up in poverty? Would people with better genes be more likely to resist the FA that might result from poverty-induced stress?  I leave it to you to argue that one out.

One could make a strong argument that humans have inventedtheir way out of needing to rely on finding mates with low FA. Our technology, medicine, and brains have helped us to overcome our environment (sometimes to our detriment) so that a different set of traits might be more telling as to the fitness of partners. Intelligence, puzzle solving, emotional quotient and even tendency to maintain monogamy might be more desirable today. But the instinct to look for low FA has been stuck in our brain by evolution and it doesn’t care about logic.

Why do I bring up emotional quotient and monogamy? Some studies reviewed in 2010 show that lower FA in human males and females correlates with more extramarital or extra-significant other affairs (called extra pair coupling, EPC). Males with more symmetrical bodies sought out more EPC and females who engaged in EPC were more likely to seek out men with low FA. Not a great commercial for symmetry.

It isn’t just humans that sense symmetry and use it for mate selection. The primate studies above show that it extends to macaques, but birds do it was well (as do probably animals in other phyla). Peahens look for symmetric tails in peacocks and barn swallow females look for makes with symmetric and long tail feathers.


The left butterfly is paler; it's a territorial male. The
right speckled wood butterfly male is non-territorial.
 He flits from area to area looking for the females not
in a sun spot. If he competes with a territorial male –
he always loses. He has more FA than a territorial
male, but no directional asymmetry.
Everything we have said above states that animals look for symmetry in mates, but there are exceptions. The speckled wood butterfly(Pararge aegeria)is a great example. The biggest exception of all is that the females prefer asymmetry – a bit.

This European and North African butterfly has two male morphs. One is territorial, it's a paler color and has fewer spots on it’s wings. The other morph is darker, has dark spots and is non-territorial. The territory they fight over is a sunny spot where the light comes through the forest canopy.

Females are more likely to be in the sun, so territorial males will fight over a sunny spot territory. The contest between males is aerial; combinations of acrobatics and duration determine the winner – except when the territory is being defended. Sound a bit confusing?

In 1978, a paper addressed this. The author found that the defender of a territory ALWAYS won the flying competition. It’s a weird way of determining who will probably mate more often if they already know the outcome. A non-territorial male will compete, but will always lose.

The only time the competition isn’t rigged for the defender is when the spot has no owner, or both males believe it to be their territory. Then the flight contest is much longer and more intricate. This is where the asymmetry comes in.


The territorial speckled wood butterfly males seek
out sun shafts in the forest. This is where the girls
will be, but it also makes them better at the flying
competition. Their time in the sun warms them up
according to a 1998 paper. Being ectotherms, warmth
means they will fly with more energy and win
more contests.
Males have some FA in their wings, but females have much more. What might be limiting the asymmetry in the males? The flying competition. A 1999 study looked at the asymmetry in the wings and noted that those males that had some asymmetry, but not too much, turned in the air faster and could stay aloft longer in a downward spiral maneuver – the main competitive move for males in an honest contest for a territory.

If asymmetry helps win the territory when it is up for grabs, then it will provide more contact with females. This means that this asymmetric (uglier?) male will have more reproductive success and his version of asymmetry will be passed on, if it's genetic.

FA is generally not considered genetic, but directional asymmetry is. The fluctuating asymmetry in the males is low, but the asymmetry that helps win competitions seems to be directional, so it could be genetic. The asymmetry that helps flying is slight, so it is a middling asymmetry that should be passed on.  The fact that females and non-territorial males have more asymmetry suggests that keeping asymmetry low is energetically costly (think about it).

Directional asymmetry in the wings has a functional advantage so it is worth the cost, whereas FA is allowed to get larger. It just so happens that directional asymmetry and antisymmetry are our subjects for next week.



Wade, T. (2010). The Relationships between Symmetry and Attractiveness and Mating Relevant Decisions and Behavior: A Review Symmetry, 2 (2), 1081-1098 DOI: 10.3390/sym2021081

Little, A., Paukner, A., Woodward, R., & Suomi, S. (2012). Facial asymmetry is negatively related to condition in female macaque monkeys Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 66 (9), 1311-1318 DOI: 10.1007/s00265-012-1386-4

Fink, B., Weege, B., Manning, J., & Trivers, R. (2014). Body symmetry and physical strength in human males American Journal of Human Biology, 26 (5), 697-700 DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.22584

Thomas F, Doyon J, Elguero E, Dujardin JP, Brodeur J, Roucher C, Robert V, Missé D, Raymond M, & Trape JF (2015). Plasmodium infections and fluctuating asymmetry among children and teenagers from Senegal. Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases, 32, 97-101 PMID: 25725158

Lazić, M., Kaliontzopoulou, A., Carretero, M., & Crnobrnja-Isailović, J. (2013). Lizards from Urban Areas Are More Asymmetric: Using Fluctuating Asymmetry to Evaluate Environmental Disturbance PLoS ONE, 8 (12) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084190

Ozener B (2011). Does urban poverty increase body fluctuating asymmetry? Collegium antropologicum, 35 (4), 1001-5 PMID: 22397230


For more information or classroom activities, see:

Fluctuating asymmetry -


Hermit Houses And Fiddler Claws

$
0
0
Biology concepts – bilateral asymmetry, directional asymmetry, antiasymmetry, crabs, evolution, mate choice, sexual selection, sexual dimorphism



Hermit crabs aren’t true crabs since they don’t
have ten legs (two go to form claws in true crabs)
and their antennae and eyes are different from
true crabs. Many don’t even live in the water, but
that is true for true crabs as well. King crabs,
horseshoe crabs, coconut crabs, they all have
crab in their name, but they aren’t true crabs.
Our first exception today concerns the hermit crab and the animal that determines whether hermit crabs live or die. Hermits don’t eat snails, but snails are the most important things in the life of a hermit crab. And it all relates to our ongoing to tale of bilateral asymmetry.

Most snails live in shells of their own making. As they grow larger, they add to the aperture (opening) of the shell to make it bigger – they remodel instead of relocating. As they add on to their shell, most take on a curve, so that over time, they are spiraled.

The vast majority of snail shells spiral asymmetrically to the right. They are dextral, although the occasional sinistral(left-handed) shell is found, and some species are equally left and right shelled. Because the asymmetry of the shell is almost always to the right, this is called a directional asymmetry (see last week’s post).

The right handedness of the spiral isn’t a distinction without a difference – it matters. Since the snails reproduce with organs that are located in their heads, they have to be able to line up correctly for mating; this means they need right handed spirals that fit together well when they face each other.

How does this affect the hermit crab and its survival? Because hermit crabs use gastropod shells as protection for their soft abdomens, that's how. Hermit crabs have hard exoskeletons on the front of their body, but their abdomen is covered in a very soft shell that is easy prey for a predator.

Their abdomen is reducedas well. The legs are absent or very short, and this leaves a tapered back end that fits well into an abandoned gastropod shell. The furthest south point on the hermit crab abdomen has a specialized function for gripping the inside of the shell. So, he/she carries the shell around for protection – until he/she outgrows it.


Shells are at such a premium that even before
one is abandoned, there are others lining up to
use it. Notice how they line up from large to
small. When largest finds a new shell, each of the
others will be able to move up to new digs as well.
When the crab molts a few times and becomes larger, he has to find a new home. Therein lies the rub, because snails keep one shell their entire life. Consequently, a shell only becomes available when a snail dies. And even then, they have to die in a way that doesn’t destroy the shell.

Shell number is the main stressor in a hermit crab’s life. The availability of appropriate shells is the major limiting factor in keeping hermit crabs safe. If there are too few, hermits have to find alternate housing (maybe the neck of a coke bottle or some such thing). Snail shell numbers can and do limit the size of hermit crab populations.

We stated earlier that the vast majority of snail shells are dextrally asymmetric, so it isn’t surprising that hermit crabs greatly prefer dextral shells. This is a case of an animal born symmetric but grows asymmetric. The dextral spiral of the shell molds the abdomen as the crab grows, so that it becomes asymmetric.

When a hermit crab finds an appropriate new shell, it pulls its abdomen out and quickly enters the new shell. This is the time when the crab is most vulnerable to predators. When it comes out of the shell, you can see that the abdomen is soft and reduced, but you also see that it is straight. The asymmetry is an adaptation see when they coil, but under muscular control it will be straight.


You can see the asymmetric twist of the hermit
crab’s abdomen to the right side, but it isn’t
born that way. This happens after growing up
with a dextral shell for a home. They are born
with straight abdomens and can easily
straighten them out if they so choose, since
the shell is so soft on the abdomen.
So what happens if the hermit is presented with a sinistral shell? What if it's the only shell available? Well, they may use it, but they don’t necessarily like it. A 1994 experiment showed that when presented with dextral shells, the hermits turned them correctly to pour out any sand inside.

But with left spiraling shells, they only had a 50/50 chance of turning them correctly, based on which direction they were facing. The crabs don’t instinctively know how to make use of a sinsitral shell. Good thing their abdominal asymmetry is labile; they can use a sinistral shell if that’s all they have to choose from, or even an old pop can if need be.

The hermit crab’s story is one of directional asymmetry and acquired directional asymmetry, but another crab gives us a story of directional symmetry and antisymmetry. This crab is the arm wrestling champion of the crab world.

There are 92 species of fiddler crab (genus Uca). The males of this genus have one oversized cheliped, called the major claw. That makes this a sexually dimorphic trait (see this post). They wave the major claw (more on this below) and long ago it looked to someone as if they were playing a fiddle – so they're called fiddler crabs. One guy and his observation; he must have been some kind of big wig, because the name stuck.


This shows the major claw of one of the 92
species of fiddler crab. These are in fact true
crabs, as opposed to hermit crabs above. Not
that the burrow is out of the water, but will be
inundated by a high tide. That’s important
for mating.
The major claw has a few functions. One of the primary functions is as a sexual ornament for attracting females. But it’s an ornament with a reason for its size. The males prepare a burrow for the female to lay her eggs in, and the width of the burrow matches the width of the major claw.  A wider burrow leads to a lower temperature for egg development, so it takes longer for the eggs to mature.

A 2007 study showed that the tides are very important for reproduction by washing the larvae into the water. So, if the females are mating five days before the highest tides, they choose the burrows of the largest males to slow down the maturation of the eggs. If they mate late, they choose the smaller burrows of smaller-clawed males, so the temperature will be higher and the eggs will hatch faster and be ready for the coming high tide.


The male waves his major claw to attract
females, so it is a dimorphic sexual ornament.
But it also functional, as the length of the claw
determines the width of the burrow and is
used for fighting off other males. Some males
don’t wave, they just snatch females into their
burrow when they come close. How rude.
So how does a male fiddler promote his burrow size? He waves his claw in front of the females. This draws attention to his claw and therefore his burrow size. Interestingly, they play faster when in an orchestra – well sort of. A study in 2012 showed that in crowds, the males wave their claw faster. Waving for a long period is energetically costly, so they wave fast when competition is highest and slow down when fewer males are present.

In 90 of the 92 fiddler crab species, the major claw is antisymmetric. This means that roughly half of the individuals will have the major claw on their left side and the other half will be right-clawed. This suggests that the exaggerated growth of the major claw is not controlled genetically. The pressure on claw direction is either negative-frequency based (see this post), or there is no pressure to choose a side.

However, there are exceptions. In two species, the major claw is directionally asymmetric; 99% of the males will have their major claw on their right side. This does suggest a genetic component to the side on which the major claw occurs. It’s interesting that these two very different mechanisms occur in species that are so closely related. Did antisymmetry evolve from directional asymmetry or did only a couple of antisymmetric species become directionally asymmetric?


Here you see the exceptional fight; one right-
clawed and one-left clawed individual. If they
were both right-clawed, they could clench claws
sort of like a hand shake. This is how they were
designed to be used and work best for
crushing force.
The side the major claw is on has relevance for male fighting competitions. The fights between males are very different when they have claws on the opposite side as compared to when they are on the same side. The fight starts with the males facing each other and pushing against each other claw to claw. The fight might end right there if one is demonstrably stronger, but if not, they will interlock claws and try to move the other out of the way. Interlocking occurs one way if they are opposite and another if they are same handed. This could affect the outcome.

A left-clawed male in a right-clawed species is usually at a disadvantage because of the mechanics described above. A 2007 study showed that left-clawed males lost their burrows to right-clawed males more often and kept their burrows for shorter times than right-clawed males. The right-clawed males are also more likely to pick a fight and try to take another crab’s burrow.

Therefore, these researchers hypothesize that left clawed individuals in a right-clawed species are not advantaged in a negative-frequency dependent manner – in fact, they are significantly disadvantaged, and this may keep the percentage of left-clawed males low.

The idea of whether the antisymmetric claws are not heritable traits and the directional ones are is an interesting topic.  And it gets more interesting when you start talking about regeneration– fiddler crabs can regrow the claws or limbs they lose.


Every once in a while you may see a fiddler crab
with two major claws. This isn’t such a good
thing. It costs a lot of energy to build and maintain
one, let alone two, so they will be at a survival
disadvantage. More importantly, it’s hard to pick
things up and eat them using the major claw. The
small claw is important for feeding.
Sometimes the major claw is lost, but it can come back. In some species, the small claw will grow into a major claw, and the regenerated claw will become the small claw. This makes sense – regrowth is kind of slow because the growth is limited by the exoskeleton until there is a molt – or several. By making the small claw into the big one, a couple of molts are saved.

But in other species, handedness is set and can’t be broken – if the major claw is lost, the regenerating claw will be the one of the same size no matter what. Dr. Brook Swanson of Gonzaga University has observed these regenerations in a right-clawed species. He stated that the major claw will regenerate almost completely in one molting, but to accomplish this the overall growth and size of the crab will be reduced. They have to shrink to get the claw to grow fast. Remember, this claw is basic to their competition and mating.

This leads to an amazing feature of fiddlers who regenerate a major claw. The new one is often not as strong as the old one, but they aren’t going to tell their opponent that. The crab will behave as though it's as strong as ever; he will feign wanting to fight even though he is aware that he is not as strong. They fake it – like that bully in middle school that ran away if someone stood up to him. This is called a dishonest signal, as opposed to the fluctuating asymmetry and honest signal that we talked about last week.

Next week, let’s switch it up and talk about asymmetries that occur on the inside of the animal body.




Backwell, P., Matsumasa, M., Double, M., Roberts, A., Murai, M., Keogh, J., & Jennions, M. (2007). What are the consequences of being left-clawed in a predominantly right-clawed fiddler crab? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274 (1626), 2723-2729 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0666

Milner, R., Jennions, M., & Backwell, P. (2011). Keeping up appearances: male fiddler crabs wave faster in a crowd Biology Letters, 8 (2), 176-178 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0926

Reaney, L., & Backwell, P. (2007). Temporal constraints and female preference for burrow width in the fiddler crab, Uca mjoebergi Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61 (10), 1515-1521 DOI: 10.1007/s00265-007-0383-5

Imafuku, M. (1994). Response of hermit crabs to sinistral shells Journal of Ethology, 12 (2), 107-114 DOI: 10.1007/BF02350055



For more information or classroom activities, see:

True and false crabs –


Half Male, Half Female, Completely Weird

$
0
0
Biology concepts – sex determination system, gynandromorphs, non-disjunction, mitosis, bilateral symmetry, chimera, mosaicism



Ardhanarishvara is just form of the god Shiva.
As a male, he is considered the ultimate man,
James Garner mixed with a little Steve McQueen.
Parvati, his wife, wanted to share his experiences,
so he became half her. That’s one
progressive marriage.
In the Hindu faith, Shiva is the destroyer. Anything that has a beginning must have and end, so as Brahma made the world Shiva must destroy it so that it can be remade. On a more positive note, Shiva is also the god of change, making people better versions of themselves by destroying the ego and bad habits.

Shiva is male and celibate, although he has a female consort named Parvati (aka. Shakti, Devi, or Uma). There is also a deity called Ardhanarishvara, which is a half male/half female representation of Shiva + Parvati. The icon is found in most temples to Shiva, but this deity rarely has temples dedicated to him/herself.

Evolution chose to go the other way with nature. In more complex animals, the sexes are separated and join energies to reproduce. In biological terms, it’s a matter of increasing genetic diversity, the source of mutations and drift for natural selection.

However, like Ardhanarishvara, nature sometimes gives us a mixture; a normally two sex species will produce an individual that is part male and part female. And sometimes they're exactly half and half. This is going to take some explaining.

Every once in a while, some embryos have a mistake in mitosis. When the chromosomes line up for random assortment and portioning into the daughter cells, things can go wrong. Once in a while, two chromatids (the two copies of a replicated chromosome) may get pulled into the same daughter cell instead pulled apart with one going to each daughter (called a non-disjunction event).

This produces one cell with too many copies of that chromosome, and one cell with too few. Both outcomes can cause problems. Sometimes, the problem is just cosmetic; sometimes it’s deadly.


Gene loss can come from losing a part of one
chromosome, or you might lose the whole
chromosome (monosomy). It could occur from a
non-disjunction or from some toxic event. A 2015
studyshows that smoking can cause a loss of the Y
chromosome in some cells. This makes men more
at risk for some cancers due to smoking (those
outside the lung).  Still want a cigarette?
On the other hand, on very rare occasions a chromosome will be lost during mitosis (chromosome loss event). It ends up next to that sock you can’t find in the washer. Who knows where it is – it just ain’t where it ought to be. One daughter cell has the right number of chromosomes and the other has one too few. Again, the consequences can range from small to really big.

A third possibility exists, where a mutation occurs in one chromatid after replication, so that even if the mitosis is normal (which it almost always is) one daughter will have a mutation (one normal and one mutated gene on the two chromosomes of the same type) and the other won’t (two normal genes on two normal chromosomes).

From then on, every time the daughter cells divide they increase the number of mutated and normal cells. The animal, if it survives to be born, will be a chimera (a mixture of two genotypes). The original chimera was a Greek mythical figure made from the parts of many animals and which breathed fire. It was a half-brother to the Hydra and Cerberus, the three-headed dog. Here it means something less menacing, but just as interesting.

Special circumstances can bring special kinds of chimeras. Which type is formed depends on when the mutation, non-disjunction, or chromosome loss occurs. In some animals, the first cell division after fertilization establishes right and left halves of the animal. Every progeny cell from one of the first daughters will be one side of the body, while every cell coming from the other original daughter will be on the other half of the animal.


The lobster on the top is a mosaic, the mutation
which changed the pigment occurred at a point when
some mutated and some non-mutated cells were on
each bilateral half of the embryo, so there are patches
of each. The bottom version had a mutation that
occurred precisely as the embryo was determining
right and left sides.
If the chromosome change or gene mutation occurs at this point, then exactly one half of the animal will have the change and the other half won’t. This is a bilateral chimera. On the other hand, of the mutation/change occurs at some other point, the there will be patches of one type of cell and patches of the other. This is called a mosaic (see picture to the right).

A 2013 review talks about mutations in different populations of cells and the right left isolation of some mutations. The authors point out that in bilateral chimeras, it is easy to study subtle effects of the gene mutation – one half displays the mutation, and the other half doesn’t. A single animal (could be a person) can serve as the experimental model AND  the control.

For example, in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) the males are XY and the females are XX. If there was chromosome loss early in development, with a single X lost in one daughter cell, there will be XX daughter cells and X (called X0) daughter cells. X0 cells are male because the primary sex determining is located on the X chromosome. In this case just described, the XX cells are female and the X0 cells are male, in the same animal!

This animal would be a gynandromorph chimera. The word is very telling, since gyno = female and andro = male. This is different from a hermaphrodite. The hermaphroditic animal has two sets of genitalia, one female and one male (whether they work or not is another question). In a gynandromorph, the two cell populations of the entire animal show different sex chromosomes.


The patterning on the thorax and abdomen is a bit
hard to see, but the eyes are easily picked out on the
gynandromorphic fruit fly. The pigment genes are
on the sex chromosome.
Gynandromorphs are extremely rare. In fact, they have been demonstrated in only two groups, but this is preliminary. Remember how we talked about animal sexual dimorphism a few weeks ago? Well, it’s only in sexual dimorphic animal species that you would actually notice gynandromorphs (of course, there are exceptions).  

Birds and arthropods are the two animal groups where we have seen gynandromorphs. We gave the example of fruit flies above. You can check out the picture of one to the left. This is specific example of gynandromorph, a bilateral gynandromorph. The left side is female and the right half is male.

In different systems of embryonic development, chimeras can develop side to side (bilateral), front to back (polar), or corner to corner (oblique). This is if the mutation or change in chromosome or gene number takes place at exactly the right mitotic event that divides an animal. If it is any of the other time, the animal will be a mosaic.

In the bilateral gynandromorphic fruit fly above, the color of the eyes is different on each side, as is the body coloring and some other characteristics. This is because the secondary sex characteristics that determine sexual dimorphism are linked to the sex chromosomes.


Spiders have funky sex-determination systems, but
they can still have gynandromorphs. The coloring is
different, but there’s more. It is hard to see, but only
the male side (purplish) has the palp organ growing
on the second appendage for the transfer of
reproductive cells. Image via: spider silk stockings
But wait – normal male and female fruit flies both have red eyes. Here one is red but the other is white. That’s because the gene for eye color and body color pattern in fruit flies is carried on the X chromosome too. If the loss of a chromosome leaves that side of the body with only one X (XO male) and the X it has carries the recessive white eye color gene, then that eye will be white. The other half (XX female) might have dominant red and recessive white eye genes on its two X chromosomes, so that eye would be red.

Is a bilateral difference in coloration enough to call an animal bilaterally asymmetric? They are phenotypically (how they look outwardly) asymmetric, but you cut them in half the silhouettes would be exactly the same (body plan is still symmetric). You can argue amongst yourselves as to what makes an animal bilaterally asymmetric.

Gynandromorphs in vertebrates are extremely rare. The reason for this is that sex characteristics aren’t only controlled by genes on the sex chromosomes. They are also under the control of hormones. But gynandromorphy does occur in birds – they’re vertebrates, but different somehow. No one is quite sure why gynandromorphs are possible for them.

It could be that the mistake comes when multiple male reproductive cells are successful in fertilizing one egg cell. When the fertilized egg cell divides, the daughters would probably be asymmetric with respect to sex chromosomes. Since the sex chromosomes control the production of the reproductive organs, and those organs then make the hormones, you can see how the two are linked.


The gynandromorphic chicken on the left is more a
mosaic than completely bilateral. The male side (your
right) has bigger breast muscle, leg spur, bigger wattle
and white feathers (see the sporadic darker feathers –
it’s a mosaic). A 2010 study showed that if you
transplanted male cells on to the female side, they
retained their secondary sex characteristics –hormones
ain’t everything. The cardinal on the right is striking –
the perfect Ball State University mascot.
The key is in determining which of the sexually dimorphic traits are under strictly genetic control and which are under hormonal control. A study in a gynandromorphic finch in 2003 showed that not everything is hormones. The brains of the males and females are different (in part this determines the song the bird sings) and gynandromorphic finches have brains that are half male and half female in structure. Even with hormones that circulate throughout the body, the brains are still different. The finch of the study sang a male song and mated with a female (no offspring). The male behaviors were controlled by the male part of the brain.

A very rare gynandromorphic cardinal was spotted and subsequently studied for 40 days from afar. The paper reporting this study stated that the bird never sang, never drew the attention of other birds, and never mated. It was a complete loner. But could he/she mate?

Most female birds have one horn of the uterus (left side) that is functional while the other is small and nonfunctional (makes them lighter for flight). Male birds usually have one long testis that is functional, the right one. Since neither male or female birds (most of them) have external reproductive organs, then a gynandromorph bird where the left half is female and the right half is male might actually have a shot at being fertile. It would all depend on how the hormone battle played out.

However, gynandromorphs in mammals don’t happen. The sex hormones control too much of the systems and flow throughout entire body, so you can’t really keep secondary sex characteristics limited to a geographically determined set of cells, even if the sex chromosomes are different in the cells.


Butterflies show sexual dichromatism (different colors
in males and females) and well as different morphologies
of wing (shapes), The gynandromorphs display both, so
they are truly bilaterally asymmetric. Butterflies have an
XX and XY (XO) sex determination system like fruitflies,
except here the XX’s are male.
But there are some characteristics that are hormone independent. Some sex characteristics are set BEFORE the sex determining genes on the sex chromosomes are turned on (reviewed here). The sex characteristic is a default, and therefore is seen both males and females despite later hormone differences. That’s why men have nipples. Nippled is the default state, no nipples isn’t possible. And three nipples is just weird.

The example I like to give for the bilateral gynandromorphy that shows true bilateral asymmetry is butterflies. The male and female often have different coloration and wing shape. This makes them sexually dichromatic within one animal but also bilaterally asymmetric.

Next week we’ll back to the butterflies and asymmetry. There’s one butterfly who is attractive to the girls precisely because he’s asymmetric.



Renfree, M., Chew, K., & Shaw, G. (2014). Hormone-Independent Pathways of Sexual Differentiation Sexual Development, 8 (5), 327-336 DOI: 10.1159/000358447

Dumanski, J., Rasi, C., Lonn, M., Davies, H., Ingelsson, M., Giedraitis, V., Lannfelt, L., Magnusson, P., Lindgren, C., Morris, A., Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Tiensuu Janson, E., Lind, L., Pedersen, N., Ingelsson, E., & Forsberg, L. (2014). Smoking is associated with mosaic loss of chromosome Y Science, 347 (6217), 81-83 DOI: 10.1126/science.1262092

Zhao, D., McBride, D., Nandi, S., McQueen, H., McGrew, M., Hocking, P., Lewis, P., Sang, H., & Clinton, M. (2010). Somatic sex identity is cell autonomous in the chicken Nature, 464 (7286), 237-242 DOI: 10.1038/nature08852

Peer, B., & Motz, R. (2014). Observations of a Bilateral Gynandromorph Northern Cardinal ( ) The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 126 (4), 778-781 DOI: 10.1676/14-025.1

Ma, K. (2013). Embryonic left-right separation mechanism allows confinement of mutation-induced phenotypes to one lateral body half of bilaterians American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 161 (12), 3095-3114 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36188




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Sex-determination system –

Gynandromorphy -



Left-Handers Have Prettier Brains

$
0
0
Biology concepts – evolution, internal bilateral asymmetry, lateralization of function, brain, neural plasticity



This MRI start at one ear and shows slices through
the head until it gets to the other ear. It looks as
though the loop reverses itself halfway through,
because we are bilaterally symmetric – supposedly.
But the brain has some very specific asymmetries.
Can you see the differences from side to side?
Brains are amazing things – and we know next to nothing about them. For instance, every once in a while a seemingly normal person will show up at a doctor’s office or hospital for a headache or perhaps a tingling in an extremity. When they have an X-ray or an MRI of their head, low and behold they’re missing some large part of their brain! Sometimes, an entire hemisphere just isn’t there.

In 2009, a 10 year old girl in Britain was found to have depth of vision and a full visual field even though she was completely missing her right cerebral hemisphere. As you might already know, some visual signals from each eye cross the midline and are processed by the alternate side of the brain, but her brain had reprogrammed itself to process all visual signals through the left hemisphere.

This cerebral hypoplasia often brings some functional defects, but not always. Defects might occur because the brain is functionally asymmetric; there are lateralization of functions (more on this below).

However, the brain is quite plastic in early life. Many possible defects can be worked around, especially if the problem is congenital or comes from a trauma that occurred early in life. Rerouting of functions is more likely if the brain is in the process of lateralizing function, rather than if the brain is set in its ways.

Take for example the case of an 88 year old man who came to the hospital in a bit of confusion with a tingling in one foot. A subsequent MRI showed that his brain was completely missing a structure called the corpus callosum (Latin = tough body). This is the main connection between the right and left hemispheres of the cerebrum.


The corpus callosum is just the largest connection
(commissure) between the different hemispheres,
but there are others. The anterior may be involved
in color perception while the posterior is for the
pupillary light reflex. The optic chiasm crosses some
visual signals to the opposite optic nerve, but the
functions for the middle and habenular are unknown.
His right half wasn’t speaking his to his left half (like many extended families), yet he functioned just perfectly. The reason is that he was most likely born that way, and his brain had ample time to build up the lesser communications between the hemispheres; this is plasticity. And yes, there are other ways for the two hemispheres to talk to one another, though most people believe it occurs only through the corpus callosum (see image to left).

We have filled several posts this year discussing the asymmetry of some animals and plants (see this, this, this, this, this, and this post). In each case, we have been talking about external asymmetries, but that isn’t the only kind. Our bodies, and those of many animals, also have internal asymmetries.

Most animals have significant internal asymmetry, but there’s no better place to start than the brain. It is both structural and functionally asymmetric. Here are a couple of stories of the brain structures/functions and the asymmetries that are built into them.

The human brain has many parts; each of which has varied functions, although most parts coordinate together. There are usually two cerebral hemispheres which make up the cerebrum (Latin for brain… well, duh). These hemispheres make up 80% of the volume of the human brain. It is here that our more advance thinking takes place – language, thought, attention, decision making, emotion, and consciousness just to name a few.

Each of the main parts of the brain can be broken down into many subparts, each with unique or coordinated functions. For example, the cerebrum can be broken down into lobes; frontal temporal, parietal, and occipital. Deep inside these are the more primitive structures, like the hypothalamus, amygdala, and thalamus that have their own function in emotion and control.


This very crude map shows the motor strip, where
your muscle movements begin. Just behind it is the
somatosensory strip, where sensations from you body
come in. Broca’s area is for language understanding and
Wernicke’s in the temporal lobe is for speech making.
Notice they show the left side – it’s bigger in right-
handed people.
Each hemisphere has its own version of these lobes and deep structures, although sometimes the functions carried by the same lobe might be different. This is called lateralization of function; these are functional asymmetries, but they can have effects on the structure of the brain as well.

For instance, which hand you normally use can be reflected in the size of your brain in the planum temporale, persylvian region, and other parts of the frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes. You know that most stimuli cross to the opposite hemisphere where they are then converted into responses. If you’re right handed, your left hemisphere will be in control of your right hand.

These areas of the brain normally have asymmetries anyway, since they are the areas that process language and speech. Both understanding speech and making speech are lateralized to the left hemisphere (well, there are exceptions, a few people process language in the right hemisphere or equally in both hemispheres). Areas such as Broca and Wernicke (see picture above) are larger on the left hemisphere because language is crucially important for humans and has therefore developed to take more area.

(Even though we aren’t going into the subject here, I just want to say that the whole thing about people being right brained or left brained is a myth. We’ll tackle it another time.)

But handedness does play a small role. About 95% of right-handers have a left dominance for language processing, but only about 80% of lefties are left hemisphere speech dominant. So in some cases, the hand you use is reflected in asymmetries of your brain.


The number of right and left-handed people has always
been about the same. They can tell from the brush
strokes and hand prints in cave paintings. Interestingly,
new measurements of finger lengths indicate that about
75% of cave paintings were done by women.
Handedness also affects the size of the motor strip in the frontal lobe (see picture above). Righties have a larger left frontal lobe motor strip, but the opposite is not true with lefties. Their right frontal lobe motor strip might be larger, but is not as increased in size as the left motor strip is for righties – go figure.

And it isn’t just the motor strip; the speech and language area of lefties isn’t as big as it is in righties. All in all, left-handed people tend to have much more symmetric brains, in terms of shape and size.  I wonder if this makes them more attractive (see this post). “You have a lovely brain. Are you left handed?”

The second largest structure is the cerebellum (Latin = little brain, I see a pattern). This part of the brain is much older, evolutionarily, and is responsible for posture and coordinating muscle movement to give balance. It’s nice to know that primitive animals are capable of good posture – why aren’t teenagers?

The cerebellum comes in two hemispheres, just like the cerebrum, but they are smaller and located below the posterior part of the cerebrum. Similar to our examples above, some people only have one cerebellar hemisphere too. This is called unilateral cerebellar hypoplasia.


The brainstem is the oldest part of the brain. Most of the
time it can’t be seen because the cerebral hemispheres
cover it up. The cerebellum sticks off the brainstem
and has two hemispheres. It coordinates muscle
movement.
The brainstemis the oldest part of the brain and connects our higher functioning areas to the spinal cord. The brainstem has specific jobs in maintaining the basic functions of life; sleep/wake, breathing, cardiovascular control, and pain. In addition, all the neurons that take signals toad n from the higher parts of the brain have to pass through the brainstem to the spinal cord.

But that isn’t to say that the brainstem in humans is just as it was in early evolution and is now in lower animals. A 2014 study was the first to look at asymmetry in the halves of the brainstem (it has a right and left half even though there is just one brainstem).

The structural asymmetries in the cerebral hemispheres were recapitulated in some of the structures of the brainstem (inferior olive and dentate nucleus), suggesting that the evolution of higher functions and lateralization of those functions has brought about a lateralization and structural asymmetry in the old brain as well. You can teach an old brain new tricks.

The corpus callosum(CC) is the main commissure between the cerebral hemispheres as we outlined above. It is thought that one of the functions of the CC is to integrate signals processed in each of the hemispheres. There are millions of messages buzzing back and forth from one hemisphere to the other every second, like a giant highway with 125 million lanes in each direction.

The result of all this traffic is a coordination of responses; each hemisphere doing its lateralized job plus both doing the jobs they share (and there are many). The result is a smooth integration of thought, sensation, and action.


The brain has grey and white matter. The white neurons
are covered with myelin; this helps the signals travel
faster, but doesn’t allow for connections. Grey matter
is where all the connections are made between neurons.
The finger here is pointing out the corpus callosum of a
pig. It is white because these are just signals that need to
get from one side to the other; no processing is done
in the corpus callosum.
But integration isn’t the CC’s only job. There are many inhibitory signals that pass through the corpus callosum as well. It is thought that these signals depress neural function in one hemisphere or the other, and this is the basis for lateralization of function in each half of the cerebrum. This is the hypothesis, but until now it has mostly been investigated in animal models of CC function. A new study (2015) shows that patients with agenesis of the CC (AgCC) indeed have more hemispheric autonomy.

Many functions are usually more acute in one hemisphere, like hearing and repeating one speech while listening to two simultaneously. This is one of the dichotic listening tests and usually shows a right-eared advantage (the right ear is better at separating out the two voices), but the patients with AgCC have no ear advantage for this.

And it wasn’t just “earedness;” the AgCC patients were also much more like to be ambidextrous, showing no predilection for right or left hand in fine motor functions. Together, these findings suggest that one of the functions of the CC is to suppress some functions in each hemisphere to give lateralization. This brings up an important question. What’s the advantage to a functionally (and therefore structurally) asymmetric brain?


Small birds need to watch to find food to peck up and
eat, but also to pay attention for predators or angry
vegetarians. These things are done by different sides of
the brain and it is lateralization of function that lets us
do multiple things at the same time.
Evolution has resulted in many animals having specialization of functions in separate halves of the brain, so it must convey some advantage. It seems that multitasking is the answer. Lateralization of function allows for simultaneous brain function on different tasks, or at least makes it a lot easier. A 2004 study in baby chicks showed this.

Some chicks were lateralized in the shell (one hemisphere will do all the visual processing if you expose the shells to light 3 days before hatching). As compared to normal chicks, the lateralized chicks could find food just fine, but couldn’t pay attention to predatory birds while they pecked for corn. The two functions, which are normally controlled by different hemispheres could be carried out by the control chicks, but couldn't be done when both functions were experimentally forced into the same hemisphere.

Next week, we’ll see how sex hormones play a role in asymmetric development of the brain structure and function. And there are individual differences (fluctuating asymmetries) in our brains as well.



Ocklenburg S, Ball A, Wolf CC, Genç E, & Güntürkün O (2015). Functional Cerebral Lateralization and Interhemispheric Interaction in Patients With Callosal Agenesis. Neuropsychology PMID: 25798664

Rogers, L., Zucca, P., & Vallortigara, G. (2004). Advantages of having a lateralized brain Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271 (Suppl_6) DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0200

Muckli, L., Naumer, M., & Singer, W. (2009). Bilateral visual field maps in a patient with only one hemisphere Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (31), 13034-13039 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0809688106

Baizer, J. (2014). Unique Features of the Human Brainstem and Cerebellum Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00202




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Brain structures –

Lateralization of function –

Everybody Is Just A Little Twisted

$
0
0
Biology concepts – bilateral asymmetry, brain, ventriculomegaly, brain torque, fluctuating asymmetry, sex hormones


“Getting all your ducks in a row” actually comes
from bowling. The pins used to be known as
ducks….still are in duckpin bowling. Before pin
setting machines, people had to put the pins
down in even, straight lines so that the game was
predictable and fair. The “ducks” had to be
in “rows.”
When you are organized, you have “all your ducks in a row.” When you are calm and in control, you’re “thinking straight.” When you are doing the right things, you’re “on the straight and narrow.” When something is undiluted, like a story or whiskey, you get it ”straight.”

Basically, if something is straight, it is correct, unembellished, pure, or not perverted. So what would be the opposite of this? Twisted, of course.  Twisted tales are slightly weird or not true to the stories they are taken from. And when you're “a little twisted” you’re thinking is mentally unsound or a bit perverted. 

In modern internet slang, twisted means high and drunk, so again it means a perverted form of thinking. Not that it always has to be bad; Stephen King is truly a bit twisted, but he writes well and leads a relatively normal life. Some people bask in the sunlight of their twisted thinking.

But what if I told you that everyone's brains, and therefore everyone's thinking, is just a bit twisted? In technical terms it is called a Yakovlevian torque, but let’s not kid ourselves, it means that our brain is twisted in our skull.

First recognized by the Russian born Harvard anatomist Paul Ivan Yakovlev, the midline fissure where our two cerebral hemispheres butt up against one another doesn’t exactly follow the midline of our skull. There is a slight twist to the left, so that the right cerebral hemisphere crosses the midline to the left behind your forehead and the left hemisphere crosses over to the right side of your skull in the posterior. Everybody’s brain is just a bit out of whack!


Here is a human brain cartoon as seen from
 below from a Nature Review paper. The right
hemisphere is actually on the left side. Notice how
the frontal lobe of the right hemisphere sticks out
further? It’s the same with the occipital lobe in
back on the left lobe. In each case, they twist so
they the midline of the brain crosses the midline
of the skull. The brain is torqued to the left. 
In other words, the right side of your brain is torqued slightly forward relative to the left and this twists it out of bilateral symmetry with your skull. At least part of this is due to the larger left parietal lobe areas for speech and language that most people have on their left side (see last week’s post), but that isn’t the only source.

Several sources of asymmetry go together to produce brain torque, and it can be greater or lesser in each individual – yes, some people are more twisted than others.

Yakovlev observed that different people had different size depressions on the interior surfaces of their skull in the right anterior and left posterior (called petalias). You can imagine that with a tofu-consistency brain sitting in an opened skull, it might be hard to quickly recognize a slight twist to the left, but Yakovlev wrote about it and hypothesized on its importance.

It wasn’t until 2009 that a couple of studies (here and here) confirmed the torque using very advanced imaging techniques and alot of math. The hard part is accounting for brain position internally and skull midline externally, each of which have fluctuating asymmetries within one individual and variances between individuals. But both studies concluded that Yakovlevian torque is real. Now we just need to figure out it’s significance.


This short clip shows the loss of grey matter
(unmyelinated neurons) through development in
a person with schizophrenia. As colors move to
yellow, that indicates more loss. The hemisphere
start out asymmetric and become more so. Maybe
cases can be diagnosed earlier by watching
for asymmetries.
Even if we don’t know why our brains need to torque, we can perhaps use the observation in medicine. Some torque is normal, but too much occipital bending may be bad. Two studies from the same group have correlated excessive torque with major depression and bipolar disorder. One even related atypical torque to developmental stuttering in boys.

On the other hand, a study in autism showed that there was no correlation between autism spectrum disorders and atypical Yakovlevian torque. Well, sort of. This single study only looked at high functioning, right-handed, boys in a narrow age range. So who knows if there might be some relationship between autism and torque in other affected groups. Always be sure to take into consideration the limits of any study you read.

So torque is the norm in human brains; guys and girls both have a leftward twisted to the brain within the skull. There are many more asymmetries in brain than just the ones we have discussed; there are many examples of left > right asymmetries and some of right > left. These differences are evolutionary and are apparent even during the second trimester. But the mechanism and reason for each asymmetry may be different; some are based on gender - boy brains and girl brains are different!

This exception in bilateral symmetry is two fold; there are gender-induced differences in the brain that are both sexual dimorphic – meaning that they depend on the sex hormones or sex chromosome genes of each individual, and they are asymmetric – meaning that the gender-induced structure or function changes affect one hemisphere more than the other.


Dr.s Ruigrok, Suckling and Baron-Cohen have
collated sexual dimorphisms in brain structures.
The red areas are larger in women; the blue areas
larger in men – the girls’ should have been pink.
These differences are due to genetic, hormonal, and
environmental factors all mixed up in a big soup.
Many studies have linked prenatal androgen (male sex hormones) levels to asymmetry, but some asymmetries appear before androgen even begins to be produced. These male asymmetries are probably due to the genes expressed on the sex chromosome. A 2014 study linked the two phenomena. Apparently regional asymmetries in the male cerebrum and cerebellum are exacerbated compared to female brains through the joint action of testosterone and X-linked genes.

Male brains are more lateralized than females. Functions are segregated more strictly in male hemispheres, so perhaps it’s true that only women use their entire brain.

A few weeks ago we talked about fluctuating asymmetries– those differences in structure size and position from individual to individual. We were talking then about external asymmetries, but peoples’ brains have fluctuating asymmetries as well. One in particular may help predict neurologic disease – and it isn’t even a brain structure.

Several studies go back and forth on whether the size or asymmetry of the lateral ventricles (CSF filled spaces in the brain, see this post) can predict schizophrenia or developmental delays. A 2010 case reportsuggested that alone they may have no particular effect, but if mild ventriculomegaly (bigger than normal ventricles) is accompanied by atypical lateral ventricular asymmetry (the left lateral ventricle is normally a bit bigger than the right), then these may be predictive of delay and/or schizophrenia later in life.

For a more historical example of fluctuating asymmetry in the brain let’s go straight to the top – Albert Einstein. While he was alive people wondered if his brain was different from all of ours. He just thought on a different plane; his concepts were Earth shattering, yet he used thought experiments with elevators in space and passing trains.


Einstein had a brain to be admired, and I’m sure
he wouldn’t use his powers for the dark side. But
thought experiments about elevators in space and
trains passing by aside, I’m wondering what he
may have gleaned about the universe from a duel
using the force with Darth Vader.
When he died in 1955, Einstein consented to have his brain studied. The pathologist, Thomas Stoltz Harvey, did no one any favors. He weighed it, took some pictures of it, made some measurements, and then cut it up into 240 pieces. He kept some and gave a few to other pathologists. This pretty much eliminated any decent study that could have been done at the time. Thanks a lot Tom.

In 1999, a qualitative and quantitative study of the data and measurements recovered from Einstein’s brain was carried out, comparing it to 5 male and 56 female brains. The researchers’ results were shocking for what they did and didn’t find.

First, Einstein didn’t have a huge brain, it was basically the same size as everyone else’s. There weren’t extra lobes or a million times more neurons – it looked like a regular brain on first glance. But that’s where science comes in; scientists don’t stop at a first glance.

For one thing, Albert’s brain was missing a certain landmark. Without getting technical, there are two fissures (sulci) that usually pass by one another and create a little island of tissue near the temporal/parietal lobe border. Well, Einstein’s didn’t pass by one another, they merged. This allowed more room for brain tissue since there was only one fissure instead of two.


Long before he could measure the bending of light
by massive objects, Einstein thought about how
shining a light on Earth (force of gravity), and shining
a light in space elevator (force of acceleration) might
show how light illustrates general relativity. It took
long expeditions and many years, but his idea was
finally proved correct by measurement of
sunlight during an eclipse.
This is then related to the second difference they found in Einstein’s brain. His brain was about 15% wider than normal in the parietal lobes. He had more brain shoved into that area. As fluctuating asymmetries go, this is beyond huge, usually the difference might be 1-3%.

Why might this fluctuating asymmetry be important? Did it have a functional correlate? That would be hard to tell since the brain isn’t firing now. Wouldn’t it have been great if functional MRI had been around when Albert’s brain was still in Albert’s living head? I bet he could have lit up most of Princeton – but I digress.

The parietal lobe has many lateralized functions, but some of them are right in Einstein’s wheelhouse. This lobe is important mathematical reasoning, and for connecting visual, somesthetic and auditory stimuli together into a big picture.

Take all this together and what you get is that the parietal lobe is what creates mathematical relationships, conscious or unconscious, amongst the world and its moving parts. Professor Einstein was better at that than everyone else, so maybe his wider than normal parietal lobe was responsible.

Of course this doesn’t let the rest of us off the hook. Plenty of people do some awesome thinking and reasoning with very ordinary brains. As we have shown before in this blog – exercise your brain and it will become sharp. Use it or lose it.

Next week, more internal asymmetries in those bilaterally symmetric animal bodies. Your lungs are for breathing, but right and left don’t participate equally – and there’s some cool math involved, so warm up your parietal lobes.




Maller, J., Anderson, R., Thomson, R., Rosenfeld, J., Daskalakis, Z., & Fitzgerald, P. (2015). Occipital bending (Yakovlevian torque) in bipolar depression Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 231 (1), 8-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2014.11.008

Maller, J., Thomson, R., Rosenfeld, J., Anderson, R., Daskalakis, Z., & Fitzgerald, P. (2014). Occipital bending in depression Brain, 137 (6), 1830-1837 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awu072

Mock, J., Zadina, J., Corey, D., Cohen, J., Lemen, L., & Foundas, A. (2012). Atypical Brain Torque in Boys With Developmental Stuttering Developmental Neuropsychology, 37 (5), 434-452 DOI: 10.1080/87565641.2012.661816

Savic, I. (2014). Asymmetry of cerebral gray and white matter and structural volumes in relation to sex hormones and chromosomes Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00329

Witelson, S., Kigar, D., & Harvey, T. (1999). The exceptional brain of Albert Einstein The Lancet, 353 (9170), 2149-2153 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)10327-6



For more information or classroom activities, see:

Gender differences in brains –

Yakovlevian torque –

Albert Einstein’s brain –


Fibonacci Numbers And Odd Lungs

$
0
0
Biology concepts – respiratory system, bilateral asymmetry, evolution, estivation, Fibonacci scaling in nature


Worf, although raised by humans,was mostly Klingon.
He definitely adhered to their warlike nature. His
three lungs would make him a great fighter. More
oxygen exchange means more ATP production
and more energy for the muscles. 
Not that I’m a devout Star Trek fan, but did you know that Klingons are supposed to have three lungs? The third lung was supposed to give them extra endurance on the battlefield – makes sense.

Closer to home, there was a soccer player from South Korea, Park Ji-Sung, who played for Manchester United. His nickname was “Three Lungs Park” because he could run and run without tiring.  Maybe he’d still be playing if figured out where the ball was going to be and attacked there; a Klingon would have.

Continuing our stories of internal bilateral asymmetries, let’s look at the lungs. Most people have a general idea of what their lungs look like, they seem to be fairly symmetric – but they’re not, not by a long shot. Lungs are perhaps the most asymmetric of the paired organs. Knowing this, I started to wonder if there are any animals with three lungs, or maybe just one lung.

I wonder weird things, don’t I? As it turns out, we can find examples of both in the same animal group. Snakes come in several flavors with respect to lungs and breathing. Some snakes have just one lung. This is helpful for maintaining their svelte figures, losing a lung for them was strictly a space saving measure.


See in this picture how the trachea can stick out
and to the side while it swallows prey. As it
draws in the prey, the right and left sides of the
jaw will ”walk” over the body. As this happens,
the trachea will switch back and forth from side
to side to maintain an open airway.
Snakes have a trachea that is somewhat like ours. It has rings or partial rings of cartilage that carry air from the mouth to the lung(s). They mouth breathe, but occasionally their mouths are full, having unhinged to swallow something whole. So how do they breathe when they have their mouths, throats and bodies stuffed with a rat or a goat or overly curious next door neighbor?

I'd think they would have a hard time of it. Could you breathe through your mouth after stuffing it with the last four dinner rolls just so your brother wouldn't get them? I think not. But the trachea of snakes is better than ours. It isn’t anchored in the throat, so it can actually move forward like a snorkel (see the picture). The trachea will stick out the side of their mouth as they stuff it full of very surprised frog legs, allowing them to breathe and eat at the same time.

A snake’s trachea communicates with its lung or lungs, depending on how many they have. Many species have a long, skinny right lung and a very small, nonfunctional left lung. As far as I can tell, it’s always the right lung that functions. So for snakes, possibility number one is just a right lung; possibility two is having a right lung and a small, nonfunctional left lung.


Atretochoana eiselti is the only known species
of lungless caecilian, a legless type of amphibian
that looks much like a worm. You can see in the
lower image that it has sealed, nonfunctional
nostrils. It gets its oxygen through its skin in its
moist environment. A second lungless caecilian,
this one totally terrestrial, was supposedly found
 in 2009. But a later study showed that it does
have a well-developed single lung.
The exceptions are the boidesnakes. These are the boas and pythons. They have a left lung that exchanges gases just fine, it just happens to be a bit smaller than the right lung. That's possibility number three.

In the cases of snakes with nonfunctional or barely functional left lungs, some can have a tracheal lung. This is a sac that sits on the dorsal (back) side of the trachea, above the level of where the trachea enters the lung(s). Even though this sac may or may not have typical gas exchange epithelial structures, it can exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide because it is highly vascularized and has a very thin barrier. That's four - four different lung anatomies and numbers, and all within the snakes.  

If a snake swallows something wider than its body, it makes it very hard to expand the lung(s) to breathe. The tracheal lung comes directly off the trachea, so if the snake can get air into its trachea, it can breathe via the tracheal lung, even if it can’t expand its large right lung.

So there we have it, evolution resulted in some snakes with one lung, some with two, and others with three (big right lung, small left lung and a tracheal lung). This begs the questions – did snakes originally have two lungs and were reduced to a single lung and perhaps a tracheal lung? Or did primitive snakes have one lung and some have developed more over evolutionary time?

A 2015 paper has compared the anatomy and development of vasculature in three lineages of snakes lung numbers that represent the versions we have talked about here. This paper concludes that there has been a step-wise reduction in the functionality and size of the left lung through evolutionary time.

Most animals with lungs have two of them (snakes not withstanding). How about animals with no lungs? There are so many that you could hardly call them exceptions. Nematodes, flatworms, placazoans, sponges, cnidarians, some arthropods (insects) and some annelids (earthworms and such) – the animals of these phyla exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide via direct diffusion through skin and outer layers.


Mudskippers are not lungfish. They have functional
gills and can trap an air bubble in their gills to
breathe while they are out of water.
Echinoderms, some arthropods (crustaceans), some annelids (polychetes), most mollusks, and most fish have gills that extract oxygen from the water. So really, it’s just a few snails and most of the tetrapods (four limbed animals) that have lung(s). Maybe we’re the exceptions.

Amphibians present some exceptions. Most have lungs, but can also absorb oxygen through their skin. Frogs have gills as tadpoles, but adults can breathe air via lungs, diffuse oxygen through their skin, and even exchange gases through the lining of their mouth. Of course, there is an exception to the exception in frogs. In 2008, scientists discovered the first lungless frog, on Borneo. This species only exchanges gases through its skin and mouth; the rest of its organs have expanded to take up the space of the lost lungs.

Did you notice above that fish were on our list of lungless animals, since they use gills to exchange gases? Well, that’s not true for all fish. The lungfish are aptly named; they have lungs and can breathe out of water.


The lungfish can hibernate (estivate) for years
until the rain brings it out of stasis. It can only
do this because it is an obligate air breather.
Many species of lungfish (the Dipnoi subclass) are obligate air breathers even though they do have gills. Most lungfish have two lungs, but the Australian lungfish only has one (yet another animal with one lung). These lungs look more like ours than like a tracheal lung air sac of snakes. They aren’t just highly vascularized bags, they are divided and have terminal gas exchanging structures like our alveoli.

The lungs of lungfish are modified swim bladders. The swim bladder is a buoyancy device; by altering the amount of gas in the bladder, the density of the fish is altered and helps it to dive, surface or maintain a certain depth. Without a swim bladder, the fish would constantly be working harder to dive, surface, or maintain its place in the water column.

The lungs of all tetrapods evolved from the swim bladder of fish when their ancestors left the water for land. However, some just modified their swim bladder and stayed in the water. It was thought for a long time that the lungs of lungfish and birchi (another type of fish that have lungs) evolved to help them survive in water that had little dissolved oxygen.


The top image shows the three lobes of the right
lung and the two lobes of the left lung. Notice the
cardiac notch in the left lung. Each lung is divided
 into lobes, segments, and lobules. The bottom
image shows the bronchial tree. This tree goes
along with the caption in the next figure. Notice
how much longer the left bronchus is than the
right. Does it look like the tree branching in the
picture below?
This is possible, since many live in freshwater that can have very low oxygen levels (like in Amazon or some African rivers), but it may also be that the lungs developed to provide more oxygen to the heart. This in turn allowed them to have more energy, grow bigger and be more active – gars and tarponfall into this class. They have swim bladders that connect to the pharynx or esophagus, so they can gulp air for more energy.

Lungfish may have developed lungs for another reason. Many live in rivers that will dry up in the hot summer. If they relied only on gills, this would be the end of them. But by being air breathers, they can go into a state called estivation (aestas = summer, a dormancy in hot/dry period, like hibernation, see this video). They hole themselves up in the mud, excrete a layer of mucous to keep themselves moist, then breathe air in the dried up river hole until the rains come.

Regardless of their motivation, it was one of these bony fish that took to living on land and evolved some version of the various respiratory systems that today’s tetrapods can display. Most have developed the two-lunged version because symmetry of body plan makes things easier during development.

But that doesn’t mean that we two lunged animals have lungs that are perfectly symmetric – far from it. In the vast majority of cases, the right lung is bigger than the left lung, just like in the snakes. But I don’t think it’s for the same reason.

Most animals have a smaller left lung because the left lung has a cardiac notch, a space for the left ventricle of the heart. The size asymmetry is often reflected in the subdivisions of the lungs. Each lung can be divided into lobes by the fissures that are easily seen with the naked eye. The lobes are then divided into segments and lobules.


Fibonacci series and phi are found all over nature.
The bottom image shows how trees, and bronchial
trees branch in Fibonacci scaling. The top image
shows how phalanges are scaled in Fibonacci
numbers. If you divide the last Fibonacci by the
previous, the answer tends toward phi
(1:1.618033…). Divide 13/8 or 21/13 or 34/21;
see how it gets closer to phi? The distance
between branches of bronchial tree does
the same thing.
This branching system is asymmetric, complex, and varies from species to species. Because of this, many tetrapods have specific numbers of lobes for right and left lungs. The left lung almost always has fewer lobes. In humans, there are three lobes to the right lung and two in the left – some others (R/L): dog 4/2, cat 4/3, rat 4/1, cow 4/2, horse 3/2, gorilla 4/2, sheep 4-5/3, pig 4/3.

But some animals have an equal number of lobes in each lung – armadillos and harbor seals have three lobes to each lung, while wombats, whales, two-toed sloths, elephants and rhinos all have one lobe to each lung. I couldn’t find a single example of an animal that had more lobes in the left lung.

The number of lobes and lobules has to do with the branching of the bronchial tree. And this has to do with math. I'm sorry, but yes, there's math involved. The Fibonacci sequence (0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13…) is found often in nature. So is phi, a non-repeating decimal like pi. Phi is 1.618033…. and can be found as a ratio in many biologic measurements (1:1.618). The length of your forearm to arm will tend toward phi, as will the curve of a nautilus shell if you break down a phi rectangle into other phi rectangles.

The branching in a lung is also phi; the distance to one branch (1) will be shorter than the distance to the next (1.618). Also, the number of branches will be fractals (a scaling pattern, based on Fibonacci and phi). So, the lung is asymmetric but not random. There - that much math wasn’t too painful, was it?

Next week, the left/right asymmetry continues in your body. Why is the right version of so many paired organs bigger?




Wilkinson M, Kok PJ, Ahmed F, & Gower DJ (2014). Caecilita Wake & Donnelly, 2010 (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) is not lungless: implications for taxonomy and for understanding the evolution of lunglessness . Zootaxa, 3779, 383-8 PMID: 24871732

Bickford, D., Iskandar, D., & Barlian, A. (2008). A lungless frog discovered on Borneo Current Biology, 18 (9) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.010

van Soldt, B., Metscher, B., Poelmann, R., Vervust, B., Vonk, F., Müller, G., & Richardson, M. (2015). Heterochrony and Early Left-Right Asymmetry in the Development of the Cardiorespiratory System of Snakes PLoS ONE, 10 (1) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116416

Goldberger AL, West BJ, Dresselhaus T, & Bhargava V (1985). Bronchial asymmetry and Fibonacci scaling. Experientia, 41 (12), 1537-8 PMID: 4076397




For more information or classroom activities, see:

Lungs –

Lungfish –

Snake respiratory systems –

Fibonacci sequence and phi in nature -


Viewing all 288 articles
Browse latest View live