Evolutionary biology has been animated by long-standing debates about the number and type of genetic alterations that underlie evolutionary change. Questions about the roles of genetic changes of infinitesimally small versus large effects, the origin of traits by either natural selection or genetic drift, and the relative importance of coding and regulatory changes in evolution are currently being actively investigated (1–4). One of the classic examples of major evolutionary change in vertebrates is the extensive modification of paired appendages seen in different species (5). Although essential for many forms of locomotion, paired appendages have also been repeatedly lost in some fish, amphibian, reptile, and mammalian lineages, probably via selection for streamlined body forms (6).
Threespine stickleback fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus) make it possible to analyze the evolution, genetics, and development of major skeletal changes in natural populations (7). The pelvic apparatus of marine sticklebacks consists of prominent serrated spines that articulate with an underlying pelvic girdle that extends along the ventral and lateral sides of the fish (inspiring the scientific name Gasterosteus aculeatus, or bony stomach with spines). Although most sticklebacks develop a robust pelvic apparatus, over two dozen widely distributed and probably independent freshwater stickleback populations show partial or complete loss of pelvic structures (8). Several factors may contribute to repeated evolution of pelvic reduction, including the absence of gape-limited predatory fish, limited calcium availability, and predation by grasping insects (9–12).
Genome-wide linkage mapping has identified a single chromosome region that explains more than two thirds of the variance in pelvic size in crosses with pelvic-reduced sticklebacks (13–15). This region contains Pituitary homeobox 1 (Pitx1), a gene expressed in hindlimbs but not forelimbs of many different vertebrates and required for normal hindlimb development (13). Although the Pitx1 gene of pelvic-reduced sticklebacks shows no protein-coding changes as compared with that of ancestral marine fish, its expression in the developing pelvic region is almost completely lost (13, 16). On the basis of the map location, changes in expression, and directional asymmetry shared in both Pitx1-null mice and pelvic-reduced sticklebacks, cis-regulatory mutations at the Pitx1locus have been proposed as the basis of stickleback pelvic reduction (13). However, regulatory mutations are difficult to identify, and the actual sequences controlling pelvic reduction have remained hypothetical (2).
cis-regulatory changes at Pitx1 locus. Although Pitx1 represents a strong candidate gene for pelvic reduction, other genes in the larger chromosome region could be the real cause of pelvic loss, leading to secondary or trans-acting reduction of Pitx1 expression (2). To test this possibility, we generated F1 hybrids between pelvic-complete [Friant Low (FRIL) and pelvic-reduced (Paxton Lake Benthic (PAXB)] sticklebacks [see table S1 for geographic location of all populations used in this study (17)]. F1 hybrid fish develop pelvic structures and contain both Pitx1 alleles in an identical trans-acting environment. The PAXB allele was expressed at significantly lower levels than the FRIL allele in the restored pelvic tissue of F1 hybrids (n = 19 individuals, two-tailed t test, P < 0.001) (Fig. 1). Reduced expression of the PAXB allele was tissue-specific because both Pitx1alleles were expressed at similar levels in F1 hybrid head tissue. As a control, we generated F1 hybrids between two pelvic-complete populations [FRIL and Little Campbell River (LITC)] (Fig. 1). In this cross, both Pitx1 alleles were expressed at comparable levels in both heads and pelves. Allele-specific down-regulation of Pitx1 in the FRIL × PAXB cross shows that pelvic-specific loss of Pitx1 expression is due to cis-regulatory change (or changes) at Pitx1 itself and not to overall failure of pelvic development or changes in unknown trans-acting factors.
Figure 1. Alleles of Pitx1 from pelvic-complete (FRIL and LITC) andpelvic-reduced populations (PAXB) were combined in F1 hybrids, and brain and pelvic tissues were isolated so as to compare the expression of either the LITC or PAXB allele normalized to the level of expression of the FRIL allele in the same trans-acting environment. Expression of the PAXB Pitx1 allele is greatly reduced in the pelvis but not the head of F1 hybrids (two-tailed t test, P < 0.0001), indicating a tissue-specific, cis-regulatory change in the Pitx1 locus.
Question being asked
Previous studies showed reduced expression of Pitx1 in sticklebacks that fail to form a pelvis. Is Pitx1 expression lost simply because the pelvis itself is no longer forming in these fish? Or, are there regulatory changes at the Pitx1 locus itself that reduce how much expression comes from a variant Pitx1 gene found in a pelvic-reduced population?
Generate hybrid fish that carry one copy of the Pitx1 gene from pelvic reduced fish (PAXB allele)and one copy of the Pitx1 gene from pelvic complete fish (FRIL allele). Determine if these two forms of the gene are expressed at the same level or different levels in developing pelvic tissue
The F1 hybrid fish generated in this experiment do form a pelvis, since they inherit functional copies of all pelvis-forming genes from one of the parents. If the failutre to express Pitx1 in PAXB pelvic-reduced fish is just a secondary effect of losing the pelvis, then expression of the PAXB form of the gene should be restored in a hybrid fish that now make a pelvis. Conversely, iif thePAXB form of PITX1 still fails to express even in a fish that can form a pelvis, this version of the gene must have a regulatory mutation that causes reduced expression in pelvic tissue.
It is important to consider the possibility that F1 hybrids of any combination may not express the two different alleles at the same level. In this case, any differences observed in PAXB and FRIL expression would not be informative. As a control, the authors generate sticklebacks that have one copy of LITC (pelvic-complete) and one copy of FRIL (pelvic-complete) and measure the expression levels of each allele in the pelvis. Since the two pelvic-complete alleles are not expected to have a regulatory mutation, they should be expressed at similar levels.
Compared to FRIL (the pelvic-complete allele), PAXB (pelvic-reduced allele) expression is significantly reduced in pelvic tissue of F1 hybrid fish. In contrast, in developing heads, PAXB and FRIL are expressed at similar levels.
What this figure shows
The cross on the left is the control experiment: F1 hybrids generated from two pelvic-complete sticklebacks (FRIL x LITC).
On the right is the cross used to generate F1 hybrids from a pelvic-complete and a pelvic-reduced stickleback (FRIL x PAXB).
In the plots, "normalized expression" is a ratio of the expression level of one allele to the expression level of the FRIL allele. PAXB is expressed at similar levels as FRIL in brain tissue and therefore the normalized expression is close to 1. PAXB is expressed at a much lower level compared to FRIL in pelvic tissue and therefore the normalized expression is less than 1 (and would approach 0 if expression in the pelvis was abolished).
The Pitx1 gene of pelvic-reduced fish (PAXB) shows greatly reduced expression in the developing pelvis of F1 hybrid fish. Reduced expression of Pitx1 is thus linked to the PAXB allele, and must be caused by cis-regulatory mutations the Pitx1 gene itself, rather than being an indirect effect of other changes
Down regulation of Pitx1 is NOT observed in the brain, and therefore the regulatory change in pelvic-reduced sticklebacks are is tissue-specific.
Fine mapping of pelvic regulatory region. To further localize the position of the cis-acting changes, we looked for the smallest chromosome region co-segregating with bilateral absence of pelvic structures in a cross between pelvic-complete [Japanese marine (JAMA) and pelvic-reduced (PAXB) fish (13)]. High-resolution mapping identified a 124-kb minimal interval, containing only the Pitx1 and Histone 2A (H2AFY) genes, which showed perfect concordance between PAXB alleles and absence of the pelvis (fig. S1A).
Recombination in natural populations can also be used to narrow the size of regions controlling polymorphic traits in sticklebacks (18). We therefore tested whether markers in the Pitx1 region were associated with the presence or absence of pelvic structures in lakes with dimorphic stickleback forms: benthic and limnetic sticklebacks from Paxton Lake, British Columbia (PAXB/PAXL), and pelvic-complete and pelvic-reduced sticklebacks from Wallace Lake, Alaska (WALR/WALC) (fig. S2) (13, 14). Microsatellite markers located in an intergenic region approximately 30 kb upstream of Pitx1 showed highly significant allele frequency differences in fish with contrasting pelvic phenoytpes (P < 10−35) (Fig. S1B and table S2). In contrast, markers around thePitx1 and H2AFY coding regions showed little or no differentiation above background levels. These results suggest that an approximately 23-kb intergenic region upstream of Pitx1 controls pelvic development. This region is conserved among zebrafish and other teleosts (Fig. 2A), suggesting that it may contain ancestrally conserved regulatory enhancers.
Fig. 2. (A) VISTA/mLAGAN (http://genome.lbl.gov/vista/) alignment ofPitx1 candidate region from pelvic-complete stickleback (SALR), medaka, and zebrafish. Red peaks indicate >40% sequence identity in 20-bp sliding windows; grey bars at topindicate repetitive sequences; and circles indicate microsatellite markers used in association mapping in fig. S1. (B) Reporter gene expression in transgenic animals. (C) Pel-2.5-kbSALR from a marine population drives tissue-specific EGFP (green) expression in the developing pelvic bud ofSwarup stage-32 larvae (36). (F) Detail of (C). (D and G)Altered Pel-Δ2.5-kbPAXB sequence from pelvic-reduced PAXB stickleback fails to drive pelvic EGFP expression. (E and H) A smaller fragment from marine fish, Pel-501-bpSALR, also drives EGFP expression in the developing pelvic bud of multiple stage-30 larvae. This region is completely missing in PAXB.
Question for 2A
Can we narrow down the regulatory change in Pitx1 to a smaller, specific stretch of DNA? Does this region contain sequences that tend to be conserved among most fish? Are such conserved noncoding regions somehow altered n pelvic-reduced sticklebacks?
Experiment for 2A
Look for the smallest genetic region that is consistently associated with pelvic reduction in genetic crosses and natural populations. Within this candidate region, identify the DNA region that exhibits the most differences in pelvic-reduced versus pelvic-complete sticklebacks.
Rationale for 2A
The specific region responsible for pelvic development is expected to be different in pelvic-reduced sticklebacks compared to pelvic-complete sticklebacks.
Results for 2A
Genetic markers spanning a 23,000 bp region are consistently correlated with pelvic reduction in both lab crosses and interbreeding fish from a wild population. This region corresponds to an intergenic (noncoding) region upstream of Pitx1. co. The coding regions of Pitx1 and Histone 2a (another gene located within the candidate region) did not exhibit significant differences in pelvic-reduced sticklebacks compared with pelvic-complete sticklebacks, and therefore are not likely to cause the differences in pelvic development.
Conclusions for 2A
The genetic changes that regulate pelvic development are located in an intergenic region (as opposed to within the coding region) of Pitx1. This region contains several noncoding sequences that are conserved (that is shows few genetic changes) between other types of fish, but do look different in pelvic-reduced sticklebacks.
Question for 2B
Can we identify the precise DNA sequence that drives Pitx1 expression in pelvic tissue?
The authors break up the candidate region into smaller fragments and clone them into reporter constructs. Different reporter constructs were introduced into fertilized stickleback eggs, to determine which fragment could drive gene expression specifically in pelvic tissue of transgenic fish.
If a transgene contains the fragment of DNA that can drive Pitx1 expression in the developing pelvis, then the transgenic animal will express the Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) reporter gene in the developing pelvis.
Both a 2.5 kb and a smaller 501 base pair fragment within the candidate region from a pelvis-complete stickleback (SALR) drive enhanced GFP expression (EGFP) in the pelvic tissue of developing sticklebacks. EGFP expression was not observed in other tissues. If the same region is cloned and tested from PAXB, the deleted form of the enhancer found in the pelvic reduced population no longer drives GFP expression.
The Pitx1 gene of pelvic-complete sticklebacks contains a non-coding regulatory sequence that drives expression specifically in the developing pelvis (Pel-501-bpSALR). This 501 bp region is deleted in PAXB sticklebacks, confirming the previously postulated regulatory alteration in pelvic-reduced fish.
A small enhancer drives pelvic expression of Pitx1. To test for regulatory functions in the Pitx1 intergenic region, we cloned different subfragments upstream of a basal promoter and enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) reporter gene (Fig. 2B) (19). The hsp70 promoter drives modest or no EGFP expression except in the eye (19). A construct containing a 2.5-kb fragment from a marine, pelvic-complete fish [Salmon River (SALR)] drove consistent EGFP expression in the developing pelvic region of transgenic sticklebacks (four of five independent transgenics) (Fig. 2, C and F). A smaller 501–base pair (bp) subfragment also drove highly specific pelvic expression (seven of nine transgenics) (Fig. 2, E and H). No consistent expression was seen in pectoral fins or other sites of normal Pitx1 expression, including the mouth, jaw, and pituitary (13, 16). Thus, the noncoding region upstream of Pitx1 contains a tissue-specific enhancer for hindfin expression, which we term “Pel.” Pel shows sequence conservation across distantly related teleost fish (Fig. 2A and fig. S3) and contains multiple predicted transcription factor binding sites that might contribute to spatially restricted expression in the developing pelvic region (fig. S4).
Transgenic rescue of pelvic reduction. If regulatory changes in Pitx1 underlie pelvic reduction in sticklebacks, restoring pelvic expression of Pitx1 should rescue pelvic structures. We cloned the 2.5-kb Pel region from a pelvic-complete population (SALR) upstream of a Pitx1 minigene that was prepared from coding exons of a pelvic-reduced fish [Bear Paw Lake (BEPA)] (14). The rescuing construct was injected into fertilized eggs of BEPA fish, which normally fail to develop any pelvic spine and show no more than a small vestigial remnant of the underlying pelvic girdle (pelvic score ≤ 3) (Fig. 3, B and D, and fig. S5) (12). Transgenic fry showed variable but enhanced development of external pelvic spines as compared with those of control uninjected siblings (clutch 1, n = 16 injected and 11 uninjected fish, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, W = 1073.5, P < 0.01; clutch 2, n = 4 injected and 18 uninjected fish, W = 513, P < 2.3×10−9) (Fig. 3A). Alizarin red skeletal preparations of two adult transgenic fish revealed prominent serrated spines articulating with an enlarged, complex pelvic girdle containing anterior, posterior, and ascending branch structures (Fig. 3C and fig. S5, pelvic score summary). These data provide functional evidence that Pel-Pitx1 is a major determinant of pelvic formation in sticklebacks.
Fig. 3. (A) Juvenile pelvic-reduced BEPA stickleback expressing a Pitx1 transgene driven by the Pel-2.5-kbSALR enhancercompared with (B) uninjected sibling. External spines form only in transgenic fish (arrowhead). ">(C and D) Alizarin red–stained pelvic structures of adult transgenic fish compared with BEPA parental phenotype. BEPA fish normally develop only a small ovoid vestige (OV) of the anterior pelvic process (AP). Transgenic fish show clear development of the AP,ascending branch (AB), and posterior process (PP) of the pelvis, and a prominent serrated pelvic spine. Pectoral fin (PF) rays develop in both fish.
Pel can promote Pitx1 expression in the developing pelvis, but is this sufficient to induce the development of a pelvic structures in pelvis-reduced sticklebacks?
Inject a piece of DNA containing a transgene with Pel and Pitx1 into a pelvic-reduced stickleback and check for the development of pelvic structures. As a negative control, the authors use pelvic-reduced sticklebacks not injected with a transgene.
If mutation of Pel is a key factor controlling pelvic loss in sticklebacks, reintroduction of a Pel-Pitx1 transgene generated from a pelvic-complete fish should be able to restore pelvic development in a pelvic-reduced fish.
Pelvic-reduced fish injected with the Pel-Pitx1 transgene develop pelvic structures, while fish that were not injected with the transgene did not develop pelvic tissue.
Reintroduction of a single gene can restore the morphological formation of a pelvis in evolved sticklebacks, providing strong evidence that the correct gene and regulatory sequences governing this trait have been identified.
Nature of mutations in pelvic-reduced fish. Bacterial artificial chromosome sequencing from the PAXB population identified a 1868-bp deletion present in the Pel-2.5-kb region (fig. S7). We cloned the PAXB-deleted variant and found that it no longer drove expression in the developing pelvis (zero out of eight transgenic animals) (Fig. 2, D and G), confirming that the molecular deletion in PAXB fish disrupts Pel enhancer function.
We also identified a second 757-bp deletion present in the pelvic-reduced BEPA population from Alaska and a third deletion of 973 bp present in the Hump Lake, Alaska, pelvic-reduced population (HUMP). The three different deletions in PAXB, BEPA, and HUMP overlap in a 488-bp region, each partially or completely removing the sequences found in the Pel-501-bp enhancer (Fig. 4A and figs. S4, S7, and S8).
Fig. 4: (A) SNP genotyping in additional pelvic-reduced populations identifies nine different deletions that overlap in a 488-bp region. Triangles indicate SNP markers; gray bars indicate putative deleted regions flanked by two failed SNP genotypes; dark blue bars indicate regions flanked by two successful SNP genotypes; light blue bars indicate regions with successful genotypes only on one side; red bars indicate positions of Pel-2.5-kb and Pel-501-bp enhancers. Apparent deletions were confirmed by means of sequencing in populations 4, 6, and 7, with the size of deletions indicated on the right, and micro-homologies of 2 to 3 bp at deletion junctions shown in red. (B) Location of populations surveyed. (C) TwistFlex (20) prediction of highly flexible DNAregions (red circles) in Pitx1 locus (Pel region score is 3263) compared with the frequency distribution offlexibility scores in the rest of the stickleback genome (median score is 265). The area of the red circles is proportional to the flexibility score.
Question for A and B
Does the Pel region differ among populations of pelvic-reduced sticklebacks? If so, what kind of mutations are observed, and how do they differ? Do different pelvic-reduced populations have similar mutations in Pel?
Experiment for A and B
Analyze the Pel sequence from pelvic-reduced populations and compare it with the Pel sequence in pelvic-complete populations. The Pel sequence from three pelvic-reduced populations was directly sequenced. In 10 additional pelvic-reduced populations, SNP markers were used to identify changes in the Pel region.
Rationale for A and B
Evolution of pelvic reduction could occur either by similar or different mechanisms in different lakes around the world. Having identified the key Pel enhancer for Pitx1 expression in the pelvis, it is now possible to test whether changes in this sequence are a common feature of pelvic evolution in different populations.
Results for A and B
Deletions of the Pel enhancer sequence were found in nine different pelvic-reduced stickleback populations. All the observed deletions removed the Pel region, though the size and end points of the deletions vary from a few hundred to a few thousand base pairs among populations.
Question for C
Is the Pel region particularly susceptible to mutations when compared with other regions of the stickleback genome?
Experiment/Rationale for C
Regions with high DNA flexibility have been previously been found at fragile sites that are more prone to breakage in human chromosomes. A similar high degree of DNA flexibility could lead to the repeated deletions observed in different stickleback populations.
Results for C
Sequences in the Pitx1 gene locus shows some of the highest predicted DNA helical twist flexibility in the entire stickleback genome (twelve times higher than the median flexibility score of the rest of the genome)..
Repeated evolution occurs through repeated deletions of the Pitx1 regulatory region in many different populations, and may be influenced by unusual high DNA flexibility at the Pitx1 locus.
To investigate whether a general mechanism and/or shared variants underlie repeated pelvic reduction in sticklebacks, we genotyped PAXB, BEPA, HUMP, and 10 additional pelvic-reduced populations from disparate geographic locations, as well as 21 pelvic-complete populations, using 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) spanning 321 kb around the Pitx1 locus (approximately 2-kb spacing) (fig. S8 and tables S1 and S3). Nine of the 13 pelvic-reduced stickleback populations—but zero out of 21 pelvic-complete populations—showed consistent missing genotypes for multiple consecutive SNP markers located in and around the Pel enhancer (two-tailed t test, P < 0.001, df = 12.279) (Fig. 4A, fig. S8, and tables S4 and S5). For the PAXB, BEPA, and HUMP populations, the SNPs corresponding to the missing genotypes fall within the known deletion endpoints from DNA sequencing. The larger genotyping survey identified a total of nine different haplotypes with different staggered deletions, each consistently seen within a pelvic-reduced population, and each overlapping or completely removing the Pel enhancer region (Fig. 4 and fig. S8).
Fragile sites. Several features suggest that Pitx1 may be located within a fragile region of the genome: The gene is located at the telomeric end of linkage group 7; the region contains many repeats and failed to assemble in the stickleback genome; the enhancer region is difficult to amplify and sequence; and close inspection of the deletion boundaries in PAXB and BEPA revealed short 2- or 3-bp sequence identities present on both sides, one of which is retained after deletion (Fig. 4A and fig. S7A). Similar nested deletions and small sequence identities may occur by means of re-ligation of chromosome ends after breakage and repair by nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) (fig. S7B) (20, 21). In humans, NHEJ is associated with stalled replication forks at fragile chromosomal sites, which also are frequent in subtelomeric regions (21). Fragile sites are also enriched in sequences with high DNA flexibility, which is a physical property that can be calculated from known twist angles between different stacked DNA base pairs (20). DNA flexibility analysis of Pitx1 and the entire assembled stickleback genome showed a median flexibility score of 265 with a tail of extreme values. Four of the top 10 flexibility scores in the genome occur in the Pitx1 region, suggesting that this region is exceptionally flexible and may be prone to deletion (Wilcoxon rank sum = 59,624, P < 2 × 10−6) (Fig. 4C).
Signatures of selection. Recurring deletions could explain how pelvic-reduction alleles arise repeatedly in widespread isolated populations. To test whether pelvic-reduction alleles have also been subject to positive selection, we looked for molecular signatures that commonly accompany selective sweeps, including reduced heterozygosity and an overrepresentation of derived alleles (22). Patterns of allelic variation showed an excess of derived alleles near the Pel enhancer region of pelvic-reduced populations, as indicated by negative values of Fay and Wu’s H statistic (Fig. 5A and fig. S9A) (23). We also observed a significant reduction in heterozygosity at or near the Pel enhancer in pelvic-reduced populations as compared with marine populations (two-tailed t test, P < 0.01) (Fig. 5, B and C). This reduction cannot be solely explained by population bottlenecks that occurred during freshwater colonization because heterozygosity reduction near Pel is specific to pelvic-reduced, but not pelvic-complete, freshwater populations (two-tailed t test, P < 0.002) (Fig. 5, B and C). In flanking regions of Pitx1, and in unlinked control loci, we observed no significant difference in heterozygosity between freshwater fish with a complete or missing pelvis (Fig. 5C). Pelvic-reduced populations were significantly more likely to exhibit minimum heterozygosity close to the Pel enhancer region than either marine or freshwater populations with a robust pelvis (two-tailed t test, P < 0.002) (fig. S9F). The local heterozygosity and H statistic minima around thePel enhancer region suggest that changes in this region have been selected in pelvic-reduced stickleback populations.
Fig. 5 (A and B) Fay and Wu’s H and relative heterozygosity (θπ) statistics across the Pitx1 region. Blue (freshwater pelvic-reduced) and green (freshwater pelvic-complete) data pointsand locally weighted scatterplot–smoothed (α = 0.2) lineindicate the behavior in each group. The Pel-containing regulatory region of Pitx1 [gray candidate region (fig. S1B)] shows both negative H values, indicating an excess of derivedalleles, and reduced heterozygosity in pelvic-reduced fish, which is consistent with positive selection. θπ values are plotted relative to the grouped marine mean (per SNP) in order to control for variation in ascertainment between SNPs. (C) Heterozygosity (θπ) from different genomic regions, grouped bypopulation type. Freshwater fish show a general decrease inheterozygosity across both Pitx1 and control loci as compared with that of marine fish (red bars), as is expected from founding of new freshwater populations from marine ancestors. In the Pel enhancer region, but not in Pitx1-flanking regions or in control loci, pelvic-reduced freshwater populations (blue bars) show even lower heterozygosity than pelvic-complete freshwater populations (green bars) (**P < 0.01).
Do deletion mutations in the Pitx1 gene provide a selective advantage in pelvic-reduced populations? Or are pelvic mutations simply the sign of neutral or deleterious mutations that randomly accumulate over time in isolated freshwater populations?
The authors examine DNA sequence variation in multiple fish taken from different types of populations that have retained or lost their pelvis. A Pitx1 mutation that confers a positive fitness advantage will rapidly rise in frequency to become the predominant sequence within a population, a leading to a higher frequency of derived alleles and a reduction in heterozygosity in the corresponding region. These molecular signatures of positive election can be measured by established statistical tests that summarize the patterns of variation seen in different genomic windows across the Pitx1 region.
Sticklebacks from freshwater populations that have lost their pelvis (FW-Reduced) show both decreased heterozygosity, and increased frequency of derived alleles compared to both marine fish (Mar-Complete) and freshwater populations that have retained the pelvis (FW-Complete). These molecular signatures of positive selection are centered on the upstream non-coding region of the Pitx1 gene, the same region that contains the Pel regulatory enhancer.
Discussion. Traditional theories of evolution posit that adaptation occurs through many mutations of infinitesimally small effect. In contrast, recent work suggests that mutation effect sizes follow an exponential distribution, with mutations of large effect contributing to adaptive change in nature (1). We narrowed the candidate interval for a pelvic quantitative trait locus with large effects in sticklebacks to the noncoding region upstream of Pitx1 and identified a tissue-specific enhancer for pelvic expression that has been functionally inactivated in pelvic-reduced fish. Reintroduction of the enhancer and Pitx1 coding region can restore formation of pelvic structures in derived populations that appear to be monomorphic for pelvic reduction. The combined data from mapping, expression, molecular, transgenic, and population genetic studies illustrate how major morphological evolution can proceed through a regulatory change in a key developmental control gene.
Large evolutionary differences that map to a particular locus can still be caused by many linked small-effect mutations that have accumulated in that gene (24, 25). However, we find that pelvic-reduction in sticklebacks maps to a type of DNA lesion that may produce a large regulatory change in a single mutational leap: deletions that completely remove a regulatory enhancer. Smaller functional lesions might be found in some pelvic-reduced populations, including four populations without obvious deletions. However, three of these populations show unusual morphological features, suggesting that their pelvic loss may have occurred through non–Pitx1-mediated mechanisms (8, 26).
The Pitx1 locus scores as one of the most flexible regions in the stickleback genome, which may reflect a susceptibility to double-stranded DNA breaks and repair through NHEJ (27–29). We hypothesize that sequence features in the Pitx1 locus may predispose the locus to structural changes, possibly explaining the high prevalence of independent deletion mutations fixed in different pelvic-reduced stickleback populations. A similar spectrum of independent small-deletion mutations has been seen at the vernalization 1 locus of plants (30), suggesting that recurrent deletions in particular genes may also contribute to parallel evolution of other phenotypes in natural populations.
Mutations in developmental control genes are often deleterious in laboratory animals, leading to long-standing doubts about whether mutations in such genes could ever be advantageous in nature (31). Although Pitx1 coding regions are lethal in mice (32), we find clear signatures of positive selection in the Pitx1 gene of pelvic-reduced sticklebacks. Before this work, the primary evidence that pelvic reduction might be adaptive in sticklebacks came from repeated evolution of similar phenotypes in similar ecological environments and the temporal sequence of pelvic reduction in fossil sticklebacks (11, 12, 33). The molecular signatures of selection we have identified in the current study are centered on the tissue-specific Pel enhancer region rather than the Pitx1coding region. Regulatory changes in developmental control genes have often been proposed as a possible basis for morphological evolution (3, 34). However, many proposed examples of regulatory evolution in wild animals have not yet been traced to particular sequences (2) or do not show obvious molecular signatures of selection in natural populations (35). Identification of the Pel enhancer underlying pelvic reduction in sticklebacks connects a major change in vertebrate skeletal structures to specific DNA sequence alterations and provides clear evidence for adaptive evolution surrounding the corresponding region in many different wild populations.
Please take our User Survey!
References and Notes:
1. H. A. Orr, Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 119 (2005).
2. H. E. Hoekstra, J. A. Coyne, Evolution 61, 995 (2007).
3. S. B. Carroll, Cell 134, 25 (2008).
4. D. L. Stern, V. Orgogozo, Evolution 62, 2155 (2008).
5. J. R. Hinchliffe, D. R. Johnson, The Development of the Vertebrate Limb (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1980).
6. M. D. Shapiro, M. A. Bell, D. M. Kingsley, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 13753 (2006).
7. D. M. Kingsley, C. L. Peichel, in Biology of the Three-Spined Stickleback, S. Ostlund-Nilsson, I. Mayer, F. A. Huntingford, Eds. (CRC Press, London, 2007) pp. 41–81.
8. M. A. Bell, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. London 31, 347 (1987).
9. J. D. Reist, Can. J. Zool. 58, 1253 (1980).
10. T. E. Reimchen, Can. J. Zool. 58, 1232 (1980).
11. N. Giles, J. Zool. 199, 535 (1983).
12. M. A. Bell, G. Ortí, J. A. Walker, J. P. Koenings, Evolution 47, 906 (1993).
13. M. D. Shapiro et al., Nature 428, 717 (2004).
14. W. A. Cresko et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 6050 (2004).
15. S. M. Coyle, F. A. Huntingford, C. L. Peichel, J. Hered. 98, 581 (2007).
16. N. J. Cole, M. Tanaka, A. Prescott, C. A. Tickle, Curr. Biol. 13, R951 (2003).
17. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
18. P. F. Colosimo et al., Science 307, 1928 (2005).
19. S. Nagayoshi et al., Development 135, 159 (2008).
20. E. Zlotorynski et al., Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 7143 (2003).
21. S. G. Durkin et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 246 (2008).
22. R. Nielsen, Annu. Rev. Genet. 39, 197 (2005).
23. J. C. Fay, C. I. Wu, Genetics 155, 1405 (2000).
24. L. F. Stam, C. C. Laurie, Genetics 144, 1559 (1996).
25. A. P. McGregor et al., Nature 448, 587 (2007).
26. M. A. Bell, V. Khalef, M. P. Travis, J. Exp. Zool. B Mol. Dev. Evol. 308, 189 (2007).
27. D. Mishmar et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 8141 (1998).
28. T. W. Glover, M. F. Arlt, A. M. Casper, S. G. Durkin, Hum. Mol. Genet. 14 (suppl. 2), R197 (2005).
29. M. Schwartz et al., Genes Dev. 19, 2715 (2005).
30. J. Cockram, I. J. Mackay, D. M. O’Sullivan, Genetics 177, 2535 (2007).
31. E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1970).
32. C. Lanctôt , A. Moreau, M. Chamberland, M. L. Tremblay, J. Drouin, Development 126, 1805 (1999).
33. G. Hunt, M. A. Bell, M. P. Travis, Evolution 62, 700 (2008).
34. M. C. King, A. C. Wilson, Science 188, 107 (1975).
35. S. Jeong et al., Cell 132, 783 (2008).
36. H. Swarup, J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 6, 373 (1958).
37. We thank M. McLaughlin for fish husbandry, M. Nonet for the gift of the pBH-mcs-YFP vector, Broad Institute for the public gasAcu1 genome assembly, and many individuals for valuable fish samples (table S1). This work was supported by a Stanford Affymetrix Bio-X Graduate Fellowship (Y.F.C.); the Howard Hughes Medical Insititute (HHMI) Exceptional Research Opportunities Program (G.V.); the Burroughs Wellcome Fund (M.D.S.); NSF grants DEB0211391 and DEB0322818 (M.A.B.); a Canada Research Chair and grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Guggenheim Foundation (D.S.); NIH grant P50 HG02568 (R.M.M., D.P., and D.M.K.); and an HHMI investigatorship (D.M.K.). Sequences generated for this study are available in GenBank (accession GU130433-7).
Supporting Online Material
Materials and Methods
Figs. S1 to S9
Tables S1 to S5
21 September 2009; accepted 6 November 2009
Published online 10 December 2009;
Include this information when citing this paper.