4.8 Article

Evolution of mir-92a Underlies Natural Morphological Variation in Drosophila melanogaster

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 523-528

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.018

关键词

-

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [M1059-B09]
  2. Oxford Brookes University
  3. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [R01-GM083300]
  4. BBSRC [BB/H017801/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/H017801/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identifying the genetic mechanisms underlying phenotypic change is essential to understanding how gene regulatory networks and ultimately the genotype-to-phenotype map evolve. It is recognized that microRNAs (miRNAs) have the potential to facilitate evolutionary change [1-3]; however, there are no known examples of natural morphological variation caused by evolutionary changes in miRNA expression. Therefore, the contribution of miRNAs to evolutionary change remains unknown [1, 4]. Drosophila melanogaster subgroup species display a portion of trichome-free cuticle on the femur of the second leg called the naked valley. It was previously shown that Ultrabithorax (Ubx) is involved in naked valley variation between D. melanogaster and D. simulans [5, 6]. However, naked valley size also varies among populations of D. melanogaster, ranging from 1,000 up to 30,000 mu m(2). We investigated the genetic basis of intraspecific differences in the naked valley in D. melanogaster and found that neither Ubx nor shavenbaby (svb) [7, 8] contributes to this morphological difference. Instead, we show that changes in mir-92a expression underlie the evolution of naked valley size in D. melanogaster through repression of shavenoid (sha) [9]. Therefore, our results reveal a novel mechanism for morphological evolution and suggest that modulation of the expression of miRNAs potentially plays a prominent role in generating organismal diversity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据