Hsp90-induced evolution: Adaptationist, neutralist, and developmentalist scenarios
Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition 2 (4):376-386 (2007)
| Abstract | Recent work on the heat-shock protein Hsp90 by Rutherford and Lindquist (1998) has been included among the pieces of evidence taken to show the essential role of developmental processes in evolution; Hsp90 acts as a buffer against phenotypic variation, allowing genotypic variation to build. When the buffering capacity of Hsp90 is altered (e.g., in nature, by mutation or environmental stress), the genetic variation is "revealed," manifesting itself as phenotypic variation. This phenomenon raises questions about the genetic variation before and after what I will call a "revelation event": Is it neutral, nearly neutral, or non-neutral (i.e., strongly deleterious or strongly advantageous)? Moreover, what kinds of evolutionary processes do we take to be at work? Rutherford and Lindquist (1998) focus on the implications of non-neutral variation and selection. Later work by Queitsch, Sangster, and Lindquist (2002) and Sangster, Lindquist, and Queitsch (2004) raises the possibility that Hsp90 buffering may play the role that was played by drift in Sewall Wright's shifting balance model, permitting transition from one adaptive peak to another. However, Ohta (2002) suggests that much of this variation may be nearly neutral, which in turn, would imply a strong role for drift as well as selection. The primary goal of this paper is to illuminate the alternative scenarios and the processes operating in each. At the end, I raise the possibility of a synthesis between evo-devo and nearly neutral evolution. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid J. Depew (2010). Is Evolutionary Biology Infected With Invalid Teleological Reasoning? Philosophy and Theory in Biology 2.
Christina Richards, Oliver Bossdorf & Massimo Pigliucci (2010). What Role Does Heritable Epigenetic Variation Play in Phenotypic Evolution? BioScience 60 (3):232-237.
Matteo Mameli (2004). Nongenetic Selection and Nongenetic Inheritance. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (1):35-71.
Giuseppe Fusco (2001). How Many Processes Are Responsible for Phenotypic Evolution? Evolution & Development 3 (4):279-286.
Giuseppe Fusco (2001). How Many Processes Are Responsible for Phenotypic Evolution? Evolution & Development 3 (4):279-286.
Lev Yampolsky & Arlin Stoltzfus (2001). Bias in the Introduction of Variation as an Orienting Factor in Evolution. Evolution and Development 3 (2):73-83.
Arlin Stoltzfus & Lev Yampolsky (2009). Climbing Mount Probable: Mutation as a Cause of Non-Randomness in Evolution. Journal of Heredity 100 (5):637-647.
Michael R. Dietrich & Roberta L. Millstein (2008). The Role of Causal Processes in the Neutral and Nearly Neutral Theories. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):548-559.
Masatoshi Nei (2007). The New Mutation Theory of Phenotypic Evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104 (30):12335-12242.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads8 ( #123,218 of 549,546 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,546 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
