Eyes abound

Unraveling and disentangling homology and convergence is one of the most fascinating endeavors in biology. Homology indicates common origin and maintenance, and is often taken as evidence for importance: ancient features are thought to be maintained because they are too useful to dispose of during evolution. In contrast, convergence, is the separate invention of similar features or functions during evolution. Convergence is taken as evidence for an element of predictability in evolution. For a simple example, fish and dolphins are highly convergent, and we can use this knowledge to predict that when vertebrates evolve to live in the ocean, that evolution will produce particular features like flippers/fins.

I recently came across a fascinating paper, arguing that structures that interact with light - either by altering or receiving it - are highly convergent, and may even be homologous at some level. Namely, bird feathers that reflect UV light have some striking similarities with eyes! Furthermore, a paper I am a co-author on just came out in PNAS that further supports this general claim. We found that the light producing structure of a bioluminescent squid shares many features with eyes, including the ability to detect ('see') the light it produces!

First, the feathers. Bleiweiss studied the uv/blue feathers of Tanagers and Bluebirds. In nature, short wavelength colors are often produced by structures, as opposed to pigments which produce longer wave colors like orange and red. Structural colors work by differentially interfering/reflecting different wavelengths of light. A familiar example of structural color is a CD/DVD. These disks contain grooves that are spaced very closely together. Because the spacing is similar to the wavelengths of visible light, interference of certain wavelengths occurs, leaving other specific wavelengths that we see as color. These spaced grooves are called diffraction gratings, and they are known in nature, for example on the antennae of some ostracod crustaceans which reflect blue light. Bluebird and tanager feathers do not use diffraction gratings, but instead a different structural mechanism. In the course of studying these feathers, Bleiweiss found some striking similarities with eyes. Perhaps similar to fins/flippers that push water for locomotion, the physical similarities of feathers and eyes may reflect convergence due to shared physical necessities of interactions with light.

An attractive tanager.  Image from britannica.com

What are these similarities between eyes and structurally colored feathers? First is a wide, domed surface to receive the light. Second is tissue that is transparent to some light but reflective of other wavelengths. In eyes, this is the cornea and lens, which are transparent to much light, but often reflect UV (human retinas are actually sensitive to UV, except the light never gets there because the cornea and lens reflect it.). Tanager feathers have physically similar tissues with similar properties to reflect UV/blue light and allow other light to pass through. Third, there is a large central space in both eyes and ocular feathers: eyes contain humors and feathers a space filled with gas (air). Finally, at the bottom is a reflective layer. In eyes, this is the tapetum lucidum, which produces eye shine in cats, coons and other night-active animals. Again, optical feathers share a similar pigmented structure also designed to reflect light.

These similarities seem to be a perfect case of convergent evolution: two structures that perform physically similar functions (light gathering, or light reflecting) have converged on similar solutions. However, Bleiweiss also raises the intriguing possibility that eyes and feathers actually share some (partial) homology. Complex traits like eyes and feathers are made of many components, each with a potentially different evolutionary history. Amazingly, some of the genetic components, developmental features, and signal transduction cascades of eyes and feathers are also shared, in addition to their functional similarities. These similarities might be evidence of a deep shared ancestry between multiple organs, including eyes, feathers, and even teeth.

I was particularly struck by Bleiweiss' paper because I've been thinking about similar things in the context of a collaboration studying the light-producing organ of a squid that yielded a PNAS paper this week. Not unlike tanager feathers and eyes, the convergence of squid light-producing organs and eyes has long been noted. Many squid, including Euprymna scolopes, the object of our study, are bioluminescent. Euprymna seems to use its bioluminescence for camouflage. In the ocean, most light comes from straight above, so animals would cast a distinct and conspicuous shadow below them. Instead of eliciting the shadow response of a predator or prey, Euprynma matches downwelling light to make itself more cryptic. The light is produced in a light organ that houses symbiotic bacteria. It is the bacteria that actually generate the light. Consistent with Bleiweiss' general hypotheis, this light organ has many similarities with eyes.

Light organs and eyes both have lenses. Eyes focus incoming light for better visual acuity, and light organs focus outgoing light, similar to a flashlight. Eyes and light organ have an open space below the lens, and a pigmented layer opposite to the lens. In addition to these similarities, we found that the light organ responds physiologically to light using the same genes (opsin and its signaling components) that are used in eyes. Just as with optical feathers, squid light organs are functionally convergent, yet also share structural components in common, indicating some elements of homology.

Euprymna scolopes Hawaiian Bobtail Squid.  Picture by Chris Frazee, image from pnas.org

These findings indicate an interesting new research program using the tools of phylogenetics. By reconstructing the evolutionary history of multiple components of convergent/partially homologous traits, we can see how and when these components came together, illustrating the pathways by which evolution has produced new features. This will allow a richer, more fundamental understanding of the origins of biodiversity and complexity, topics that intrigue everyone.

References
Bleiweiss, R. (2009). Feathers with Ocular Architecture: Implications for Functional and Evolutionary Similarities of Visual Signals and Receptors Evolutionary Biology, 36 (2), 171-189 DOI: 10.1007/s11692-009-9059-6

Tong, D., Rozas, N., Oakley, T., Mitchell, J., Colley, N., & McFall-Ngai, M. (2009). From the Cover: Evidence for light perception in a bioluminescent organ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (24), 9836-9841 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0904571106

PT eye evolution flare up

I was notified that there was a little flare up at Panda's Thumb about our recent article on eye evolution, entitled:

Opening the "Black Box": The Genetic and Biochemical Basis of Eye Evolution by Todd H. Oakley and M. Sabrina Pankey (PDF) published in Evolution: Education and Outreach.

Warning: Long Post. If you only read one thing, read this:

One might argue that we are just pushing back the origins, changing the question of "phototransduction" origin to the question of "transduction" origins. In a way this is true, but it is also a fundamental insight about how evolution works. New features are not breathed into organisms by some unknown force, they evolve by duplication/divergence or recombination of existing features. Trace a feature like phototransduction back far enough in evolutionary time, component by component, and it grades into something else altogether.

Here is the story:
A week or two ago, I was contacted by an undergraduate from a university in the UK (I see no reason to reveal her name). She had questions about the article, writing:

I've just been reading your 2008 paper 'Opening the Black Box: the genetic and biochemical basis of eye evolution' and found it really interesting! I'm just writing an essay on eye evolution atm and am trying to get to the crux of the issue, and find out how the phototransduction cascade itself evolved. After explaining that opsin probably arose by a mutation in a serpentine gene/protein, you mention in your paper that:

"In yeast...these receptors [GPCR's - the serpentine proteins] are sensitive to pheremones, and they even direct a signal through proteins homologous to non-opsin phototransduction proteins."

What I'm wondering is, is it this whole yeast pathway that has been modified for the metazoan phototransduction cascade? Or is it only the opsin which has been derived from it? (With the subsequent molecules involved in the phototransduction cascade being co-opted from other proteins not involved in the yeast signalling pathway).

Based on this email, it seemed the student had a pretty good grasp of the issues, and I replied:

Thanks for you questions.  I found out after writing the paper that the yeast pheromone proteins are not the "rhodopsin type" GPCR, so they are distantly related at best to opsins.  So they should not be considered anything like direct ancestors of opsin.

As for other components of the yeast pheromone cascade, these are different than phototransduction.  Yeast pheromones activate a MAP kinase cascade. So, I think all that is similar is the GPCR and G-protein.

So, it really is an open question as to what the ancestral function was of some of the genes of phototransduction, although some of these genes do function in other sensory transduction pathways...

Unfortunately, she misinterpreted this email, understanding it to mean (written over at PT, using the pseudonym "Green"):

"Yeah I knew that co-option thing would be coming. Turns out there was a mistake in that Oakley and Pankey paper.

The yeast intracellular signalling cascade turns out not to be homologous in any way to the metazoan signalling cascade. It just got published before the authors realised."

First of all, this is an incorrect interpretation of what I wrote. In fact, I wrote "So, I think all that is similar is the GPCR and G-protein." This is far from "not homologous in any way", as claimed by the student. The G-protein is undeniably homologous, and the yeast pheromone receptor is a 7-transmembrane protein, at least conformationally like opsin (whether or not the opsin and pheromone receptor sequences are homologous is a trickier issue).

But the larger issue is I think an issue of "linear thinking", which I address quite often on this blog. The student seems to think that if we cannot identify in yeast (taken as a linear ancestor of animals) a cascade identical to phototransduction except for opsin, then the origin of phototransduction requires numerous simultaneous mutations. This is not the case. First of all, yeast is a more distant relative of animals with phototransduction than is sponges. I just mentioned the yeast pheromone photoreceptor in the paper as a well studied example of a pathway outside of animals with partial homology (some components homologous, some not) to photoreception. There are closer "relatives" of phototransduction in sponges (poorly studied functionally, but the genes are known) and in other animals (better studied).

Another issue is a difficulty that people have with thinking about partial homology - that some components can be homologous and some not, depending on the time scale of the comparison (see my post The Red Herring of Eye Evolution).

Partial homology is a pattern that indicates a mechanism of co-option in the evolution of features. Co-option is the combination of existing things in a new way (analogy: dijonaisse = dijon mustard plus mayonaisse). All of the components of phototransduction pre-date animals, except opsin. And if we consider opsin to be a GPCR, which it is, then all of the components of phototransduction pre-date animals. This may be considered a pattern of co-option, or exaptation. Signaling pathways were already present before phototransduction. Some of the phototransduction components function together as far back as the yeast + human common ancestor (GPCR + G-protein). Other components of phototransdcution function together in non-phototransduction cascades of other animals. This indicates that phototransduction did not assemble all at once, but built incrementally upon an existing scaffold.

One might argue that we are just pushing back the origins, changing the question of "phototransduction" origin to the question "transduction" origins. In a way this is true, but it is also a fundamental insight about how evolution works. New features are not breathed into organisms by some unknown force, they evolve by duplication/divergence or recombination of existing features. Trace a feature like phototransduction back far enough in evolutionary time, and it grades into something else, component by component.




There were other comments, too. Again at PT, she also commented:

Yeah I read Oakley and Gregory’s articles on eye evolution a couple of weeks ago. Unfortuantely neither address the crux of the issue: namely the origin of the biochemical phototransduction cascade.

To be fair, Oakley’s article (the ‘Black Box’ one) at least tries to give some biochemical details. But it only scratches the surface by suggesting a potential origin of the opsin protein. Unfortunately the origin of a new opsin protein is not equivalent to the origin of an entire phototransduction cascade.

So it seems the Darwinian account still falls quite far short of any satisfactory biochemical explanation. Descriptions of morphological change, comparisons of genes, crystallins, etc. all skirt the issue if it cannot be shown how the phototransduction cascade itself arose

The difficulty with this comment is that the origin of opsin defines the origin of phototransduction. The other components of the cascade were already there, they all predate opsin, as described above.

This is also a "God in the Gaps" argument, or maybe, a "God under the surface" argument, stating that describing the origin of the keystone molecule of phototransduction (opsin) "only scratches the surface".

Also, I don't understand what the difference is between "comparisons of genes" and "biochemical explanation". What would a biochemical explanation be for the evolutionary origins of things that doesn't involve "comparisons of genes". The genes of the phototransduction pathway have biochemical interactions with each other, many mediated by interactions between specific amino acids.