Driving developmental and evolutionary change: A systems biology view

Modelling speciation: Problems and implications

Darwin's and Wallace's 1859 explanation that novel speciation resulted from natural variants that had been subjected to selection was refined over the next 150 years as genetic inheritance and the importance of mutation-induced change were discovered, the quantitative theory of evolutionary population genetics was produced, the speed of genetic change in small populations became apparent and the ramifications of the DNA revolution became clear. This paper first discusses the modern view of speciation in its historical context. It then uses systems-biology approaches to consider the many complex processes that underpin the production of a new species; these extend in scale from genes to populations with the processes of variation, selection and speciation being affected by factors that range from mutation to climate change. Here, events at a particular scale level (e.g. protein network activity) are activated by the output of the level immediately below (i.e. gene expression) and generate a new output that activates the layer above (e.g. embryological development), with this change often being modulated by feedback from higher and lower levels. The analysis shows that activity at each level in the evolution of a new species is marked by stochastic activity, with mutation of course being the key step for variation. The paper examines events at each of these scale levels and particularly considers how the pathway by which mutation leads to phenotypic variants and the wide range of factors that drive selection can be investigated computationally. It concludes that, such is the complexity of speciation, most steps in the process are currently difficult to model and that predictions about future speciation will, apart from a few special cases, be hard to make. The corollary is that opportunities for novel variants to form are maximised.

Generating anatomical variation through mutations in networks - implications for evolution

Genetic mutation leads to anatomical variation only indirectly because many proteins involved in generating anatomical structures in embryos operate cooperatively within molecular networks. These include gene-regulatory or control networks (CNs) for timing, signaling and patterning together with the process networks (PNs) for proliferation, apoptosis, differentiation and morphogenesis that they control. This paper argues that anatomical variation is achieved through a two-stage process: mutation alters the outputs of CNs and perhaps the proliferation network, and such changed outputs alter the ways that PNs construct tissues. This systems-biology approach has several implications: first, because networks contain many cooperating proteins, they amplify the effects of genetic variation so enabling mutation to generate a wider range of phenotypes than a single changed protein acting alone could. Second, this amplification helps explain how novel phenotypes can be produced relatively rapidly. Third, because even organisms with novel anatomical phenotypes derive from variants in standard networks, there is no genetic barrier to their producing viable offspring. This approach also clarifies a terminological difficulty: classical evolutionary genetics views genes in terms of phenotype heritability rather than as DNA sequences. This paper suggests that the molecular phenotype of the classical concept of a gene is often a protein network, with a mutation leading to an alteration in that network's dynamics.

Systems biology - the broader perspective

Systems biology has two general aims: a narrow one, which is to discover how complex networks of proteins work, and a broader one, which is to integrate the molecular and network data with the generation and function of organism phenotypes. Doing all this involves complex methodologies, but underpinning the subject are more general conceptual problems about upwards and downwards causality, complexity and information storage, and their solutions provide the constraints within which these methodologies can be used. This essay considers these general aspects and the particular role of protein networks; their functional outputs are often the processes driving phenotypic change and physiological function—networks are, in a sense, the units of systems biology much as proteins are for molecular biology. It goes on to argue that the natural language for systems-biological descriptions of biological phenomena is the mathematical graph (a set of connected facts of the general form <state 1> [process] <state 2> (e.g., <membrane-bound delta> [activates] <notch pathway>). Such graphs not only integrate events at different levels but emphasize the distributed nature of control as well as displaying a great deal of data. The implications and successes of these ideas for physiology, pharmacology, development and evolution are briefly considered. The paper concludes with some challenges for the future.

A new ontology (structured hierarchy) of human developmental anatomy for the first 7 weeks (Carnegie stages 1-20)

This paper describes a new ontology of human developmental anatomy covering the first 49 days [Carnegie stages (CS)1-20], primarily structured around the parts of organ systems and their development. The ontology includes more than 2000 anatomical entities (AEs) that range from the whole embryo, through organ systems and organ parts down to simple or leaf tissues (groups of cells with the same morphological phenotype), as well as features such as cavities. Each AE has assigned to it a set of facts of the form <AE><relationship><parent>, with the relationships including starts_at and ends_at (CSs), part_of (there can be several parents) and is_a (this gives the type of tissue, from an organ system down to one of ~ 80 simple tissues predominantly composed of a single cell kind, which is also specified). Leaf tissues also have a develops_from link to its parent tissue. The ontology includes ~14 000 such facts, which are mainly from the literature and an earlier ontology of human developmental anatomy (EHDAA, now withdrawn). The relationships enable these facts to be integrated into a single, complex hierarchy (or mathematical graph) that was made and can be viewed in the OBO-Edit browser (oboedit.org). Each AE has an EHDAA2 ID that may be useful in an informatics context, while the ontology as a whole can be used for organizing databases of human development. It is also a knowledge resource: a user can trace the lineage of any tissue back to the egg, study the changes in cell phenotype that occur as a tissue develops, and use the structure to add further (e.g. molecular) information. The ontology may be downloaded from www.obofoundry.org. Queries and corrections should be sent to j.bard@ed.ac.uk.