Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Category: Genetics

Beetles provide clues about the genetic foundations of parenthood

By James Hataway

A team of researchers including scientists from the University of Georgia has identified many of the genetic changes that take place in burying beetles as they assume the role of parent. Their findings, published recently in the journal Nature Communications, may provide clues about the fundamental genetics of parenthood in insects and other animals.

Burying beetles are the undertakers of the animal kingdom. True to their name, these winged insects scavenge the wilderness in search of small animal carcasses, which they bury under the soil to save as a food source while they care for their offspring.

This is unusual behavior; most insects do not care for their young. But burying beetles take an extraordinarily active role. They prepare food, protect the brood from invaders and even feed their begging offspring much in the same way that a bird feeds its hatchlings.

“Parenting is a complex trait, but it’s particularly complex in burying beetles,” said the study’s co-author Allen Moore, a Distinguished Research Professor of Genetics in UGA’s Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “Sometimes the male or female may care for the brood as a single parent, and sometimes they appear to work as a couple. By examining changes in genes associated with parenting, we got a clearer picture of what’s really happening.”

Scientists have long presumed that burying beetles were one of the few insect species to co-parent their offspring, but the research team’s genetic tests cast serious doubt on that assumption, Moore said. The fundamental idea was that males and females that stayed together did so because they were compatible; they made up for individual weaknesses by joining forces.

“If that were true, you’d expect two parents to be better than one, but we didn’t see that at all,” Moore said. “Offspring raised by a single parent fared just as well as those that appeared to be raised by two parents.”

The researchers allowed 269 pairs of male and female beetles to co-mingle in a closed environment complete with food sources, and they observed their behavior as they raised their offspring. About 50 percent of the time, males would abandon the nest after mating, leaving the female to care for the brood alone. Females, on the other hand, only abandoned the nest 5 percent of the time.

Regardless of its sex, when a single parent cared for the young, the researchers found that beetles expressed specific genes that control parenting behaviors. But when beetles appeared to act as a couple, the story was different.

“If you just observe a pair of beetles, they may look like they’re working as a team,” Moore said. “But our genetic analyses showed that males really weren’t doing much of anything. They did not express the genes necessary to care for offspring, so the females were actually doing most of the work.”

Males and females may work together to bury a carcass and prepare the nest. But once their eggs hatch, the duties of child care generally fall to one parent, and that’s usually a female, Moore said.

While these discoveries will help scientists better understand the social dynamics of burying beetles, Moore and his colleagues hope that similar genetic approaches could be used to study the behavior of other animals.

“We know now which genes are turned on and off while these beetles raise their young,” Moore said. “Next, we want to see if those same genes influence social interactions in other species.”

The study, “Transcriptomes of parents identify parenting strategies and sexual conflict in a subsocial beetle,” is available at www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150929/ncomms9449/full/ncomms9449.html.

Co-authors for the paper include Darren Parker and Michael Ritchie, University of St. Andrews, U.K.; Christopher Cunningham, Eileen Roy-Zokan and Elizabeth McKinney, UGA; and Craig Walling, Clare Stamper and Megan Head, University of Exeter, U.K.

UGA research scientist
Allen Moore is a Distinguished Research Professor of Genetics in UGA’s Franklin College of Arts and Sciences.

Blueprints for limbs encoded in the snake genome

By James Hataway

When researchers at the University of Georgia examined the genome of several different snake species, they found something surprising. Embedded in reptiles’ genetic code was DNA that, in most animals, controls the development and growth of limbs—a strange feature for creatures that are famous for their long, legless bodies and distinctive slither.

Now, they’ve found an explanation. In a paper published today in the journal Developmental Cell, the scientists show that the same genetic tools responsible for limb development also control the formation of external genitalia, and that may help explain why snakes have held on to this limb circuitry through the ages.

Snakes weren’t always legless; they evolved the loss of limbs over 100 million years ago, said Douglas Menke, an assistant professor of genetics in UGA’s Franklin College of Arts and Sciences and senior author of the paper.

“There have been many millions of snake generations since they evolved a legless body, and we would generally expect the DNA associated with limb development to fade away or mutate to do another job, but that doesn’t seem to have happened,” he said. “Naturally, we wanted to know why snakes had retained DNA that they don’t appear to need.”

In their experiments, Menke and postdoctoral researcher Carlos Infante examined specific regions of noncoding DNA known as enhancers—a kind of switch that controls the expression of genes, telling them when to turn on or off during embryonic development.

The researchers followed patterns of enhancer activity in embryonic limbs and genitalia of mice and lizards. This revealed that many of the same enhancers are activated during the formation of these different appendages in both species.

They engineered mice that lack one of these limb-genital enhancers and found defects in the legs and genitalia of the resulting mice. The snake version of this enhancer, however, only functions during development of genitalia.

“What this means is that much of the genetic circuitry that controls the development of limbs is also important for the formation of genitalia,” Menke said. “And we think that’s why snakes still have the genetic blueprints for limb development in their genome.”

It is generally accepted among evolutionary biologists that limbs evolved from fins, but the phallus—external genitalia that includes the penis and clitoris—is thought to be a much more recent development, he said. And there is evidence to suggest that the genes initially used to grow limbs were later co-opted for the development of a phallus.

“We’re only just beginning to understand the various roles of many of these enhancers,” Menke said. “But what we generally refer to as ‘limb enhancers’ should probably be more broadly categorized as ‘appendage enhancers,’ because they clearly perform more than one job.”

The research team had access to the genomes of three snake species for this study: boa constrictor, Burmese python and king cobra. Comparative genomics research like this has only recently been made possible as the genome sequences of snakes and other species have become available.

In future experiments, Menke will investigate the extent to which noncoding DNA influences the formation of different genital shapes observed in nature.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health under grant number HD081034 and the University of Georgia.

The study is available at http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/abstract/S1534-5807(15)00583-3.

UGA research scientist
Douglas Menke is an assistant professor of genetics in UGA’s Franklin College of Arts and Sciences