Historically, evolutionary biologists have taken the view that an understanding of development is irrelevant to theories of evolution. However, the integration of several disciplines in recent years suggests that this position is wrong. The capacity of the organism to adapt to challenges from the environment can set up conditions that affect the subsequent evolution of its descendants. Moreover, molecular events arising from epigenetic processes can be transmitted from one generation to the next and influence genetic mutation. This in turn can facilitate evolution in the conditions in which epigenetic change was first initiated. 1. Introduction The view that knowledge of development was irrelevant to the understanding of evolution was forcefully set out by the advocates of the Modern Synthesis [1]. They brought the mechanism for the evolution of adaptations originally proposed by Darwin and Wallace together with Mendelian and population genetics. Maynard Smith [2] suggested that the widespread acceptance of Weismann’s [3] doctrine of the separation of the germline from the soma was crucial to this line of thought even though it did not apply to plants. Such acceptance led to the view that genetics and hence evolution could be understood without understanding development. These views were, until recently, dominant. Briefly put, genes influence the characteristics of the individual; if individuals differ because of differences in their genes, some may be better able to survive and reproduce than others and, as a consequence, their genes are perpetuated. The extreme alternative to the modern synthesis is a caricature of Lamarck’s views about biological evolution and inheritance. If a blacksmith develops strong arms as a result of his work, it was argued, his children will have stronger arms than would have been the case if their father had been an office worker. This view has been ridiculed by essentially all contemporary biologists. Nevertheless, as so often happens in polarised debates, the excluded middle ground concerning the evolutionary significance of development and plasticity has turned out to be much more interesting and potentially productive than either of the extreme alternatives. This view was developed at length by West-Eberhard [4] who argued that developmental plasticity was crucial in biological evolution. These same ideas are well expressed in Gilbert and Epel’s [5] book and developed further in the book edited by Pigliucci and Müller [6]. Bateson and Gluckman [7] have argued that developmental plasticity is an umbrella term for multiple
References
[1]
B. Wallace, “Can embryologists contribute to an understanding of evolutionary mechanisms?” in Integrating Scientific Disciplines, W. Bechtel, Ed., pp. 149–163, Nijhof, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1986.
[2]
J. Maynard Smith, Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982.
[3]
A. Weismann, Die Kontinuit？t des Keimplasmas als Grundlage einer Theorie der Vererbung, Gustav Fischer, Jena, Germany, 1885.
[4]
M. J. West-Eberhard, Developmental Plasticity and Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2003.
[5]
S. F. Gilbert and D. Epel, Ecological Developomental Biology: Integrating Epigenetics, Medicine and Evolution, Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass, USA, 2009.
[6]
M. Pigliucci and G. B. Müller, Evolution—The Extended Synthesis, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2010.
[7]
P. Bateson and P. Gluckman, Plasticity, Robustness, Development and Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2011.
[8]
P. Bateson, “The evolution of evolutionary theory,” European Review, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 287–296, 2010.
[9]
C. H. Waddington, The Strategy of the Genes, Allen & Unwin, London, UK, 1957.
[10]
E. Jablonka and M. J. Lamb, Evolution in Four Dimensions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2005.
[11]
E. Jablonka and M. J. Lamb, “Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance,” in Evolution—The Extended Synthesis, M. Pigliucci and G. B. Müller, Eds., pp. 137–174, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2010.
[12]
S. B. Gissis and E. Jablonka, Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2011.
[13]
D. A. Spalding, “Instinct with original observations on young animals,” Macmillan's Magazine, vol. 27, pp. 282–293, 1837.
[14]
K. Lorenz, “Der kumpan in der umwelt des vogels,” Journal für Ornithologie, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 289–413, 1935.
[15]
J. M. Baldwin, “A new factor in evolution,” American Naturalist, vol. 30, pp. 441–451, 1896.
[16]
C. Lloyd Morgan, “On modification and variation,” Science, vol. 4, no. 99, pp. 733–740, 1896.
[17]
H. F. Osborn, “Ontogenic and phylogenic variation,” Science, vol. 4, no. 100, pp. 786–789, 1896.
[18]
J. M. Baldwin, Development and Evolution, Macmillan, London, UK, 1902.
[19]
B. H. Weber and D. J. Depew, Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2003.
[20]
P. Bateson, “The return of the whole organism,” Journal of Biosciences, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 31–39, 2005.
[21]
A. V. Badyaev, “Evolutionary significance of phenotypic accommodation in novel environments: an empirical test of the Baldwin effect,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 364, no. 1520, pp. 1125–1141, 2009.
[22]
G. G. Simpson, “The Baldwin effect,” Evolution, vol. 7, pp. 110–117, 1953.
[23]
C. Heyes and L. Huber, The Evolution of Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2000.
[24]
F. Johannes, E. Porcher, F. K. Teixeira et al., “Assessing the impact of transgenerational epigenetic variation on complex traits,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 5, no. 6, Article ID e1000530, 2009.
[25]
M. Rassoulzadegan, “An evolutionary role for RNA-mediated epigenetic variation?” in Transformation of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology, S. B. Gissis and E. Jablonka, Eds., pp. 227–235, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2011.
[26]
G. P. Wagner, M. Pavlicev, and J. M. Cheverud, “The road to modularity,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 921–931, 2007.
[27]
S. N. Yazbek, S. H. Spiezio, J. H. Nadeau, and D. A. Buchner, “Ancestral paternal genotype controls body weight and food intake for multiple generations,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 19, no. 21, pp. 4134–4144, 2010.
[28]
M. D. Anway, A. S. Cupp, N. Uzumcu, and M. K. Skinner, “Toxicology: epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors and male fertility,” Science, vol. 308, no. 5727, pp. 1466–1469, 2005.
[29]
R. L. Jirtle and M. K. Skinner, “Environmental epigenomics and disease susceptibility,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 253–262, 2007.
[30]
C. Stouder and A. Paoloni-Giacobino, “Transgenerational effects of the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin on the methylation pattern of imprinted genes in the mouse sperm,” Reproduction, vol. 139, no. 2, pp. 373–379, 2010.
[31]
F. K. Teixeira, F. Heredia, A. Sarazin et al., “A role for RNAi in the selective correction of DNA methylation defects,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5921, pp. 1600–1604, 2009.
[32]
E. Braun and L. David, “The role of cellular plasticity in the evolution of regulatory novelty,” in Transformation of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology, S. B. Gissis and E. Jablonka, Eds., pp. 181–191, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2011.
[33]
P. Cubas, C. Vincent, and E. Coen, “An epigenetic mutation responsible for natural variation in floral symmetry,” Nature, vol. 401, no. 6749, pp. 157–161, 1999.
[34]
L. J. Johnson and P. J. Tricker, “Epigenomic plasticity within populations: its evolutionary significance and potential,” Heredity, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 113–121, 2010.
[35]
G. P. Pfeifer, “Mutagenesis at methylated CpG sequences,” Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology, vol. 301, pp. 259–281, 2006.
[36]
D. F. Schorderet and S. M. Gartler, “Analysis of CpG suppression in methylated and nonmethylated species,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 957–961, 1992.
[37]
K. Misawa, N. Kamatani, and R. F. Kikuno, “The universal trend of amino acid gain-loss is caused by CpG hypermutability,” Journal of Molecular Evolution, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 334–342, 2008.
[38]
D. Mancini, S. Singh, P. Ainsworth, and D. Rodenhiser, “Constitutively methylated CpG dinucleotides as mutation hot spots in the retinoblastoma gene (RB1),” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 80–87, 1997.
[39]
J. C. Walser, L. Ponger, and A. V. Furano, “CpG dinucleotides and the mutation rate of non-CpG DNA,” Genome Research, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1403–1414, 2008.
[40]
J. C. Walser and A. V. Furano, “The mutational spectrum of non-CpG DNA varies with CpG content,” Genome Research, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 875–882, 2010.
[41]
R. J. Britten and E. H. Davidson, “Gene regulation for higher cells: a theory,” Science, vol. 165, no. 3891, pp. 349–357, 1969.
[42]
R. Amundson, The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Theory: Roots of Evo-Devo, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005.
[43]
S. B. Carroll, Endless Forms Most Beautiful" The New Science of Evo Devo, Norton, New York, NY, USA, 2005.
[44]
M. W. Kirschner and J. C. Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn, USA, 2005.
[45]
R. Riedl, Order in Living Organisms. A Systems Analysis of Evolution, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1978.
[46]
R. Dawkins, “The evolution of evolvability,” in Artificial Life VI: Proceedings, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, C. Langton, Ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA, 1989.
[47]
G. P. Wagner and J. Draghi, “Evolution of evolvability,” in Evolution-the Extended Synthesis, M. Pigliucci and G. B. Müller, Eds., pp. 379–399, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2010.
[48]
D. W. Pfennig, M. A. Wund, E. C. Snell-Rood, T. Cruickshank, C. D. Schlichting, and A. P. Moczek, “Phenotypic plasticity's impacts on diversification and speciation,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 459–467, 2010.
[49]
C. M. Herrera and P. Bazaga, “Epigenetic differentiation and relationship to adaptive genetic divergence in discrete populations of the violet Viola cazorlensis,” New Phytologist, vol. 187, no. 3, pp. 867–876, 2010.
[50]
M. King, Species Evolution: The Role Chromosome Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993.
[51]
S. Fraguedakis-Tsolis, H. C. Hauffe, and J. B. Searle, “Genetic distinctiveness of a village population of house mice: relevance to speciation and chromosomal evolution,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 264, no. 1380, pp. 355–360, 1997.
[52]
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, “Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome,” Nature, vol. 437, pp. 69–87, 2005.
[53]
R. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn, USA, 1940.
[54]
P. R. Grant, Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1986.
[55]
S. Tebbich, M. Taborsky, B. Fessl, and D. Blomqvist, “Do woodpecker finches acquire tool-use by social learning?” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 268, no. 1482, pp. 2189–2193, 2001.
[56]
P. Bateson, “Fetal experience and good adult design,” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 928–934, 2001.
[57]
S. E. Sultan, “Commentary: the promise of ecological developmental biology,” Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B, vol. 296, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2003.
