Matching Items (5)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Evolution & development
- Creators: Harris, Robin
Description
In 1997, developmental biologist Michael Richardson compared his research team's embryo photographs to Ernst Haeckel's 1874 embryo drawings and called Haeckel's work noncredible.Science soon published <“>Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,<”> and Richardson's comments further reinvigorated criticism of Haeckel by others with articles in The American Biology Teacher, <“>Haeckel's Embryos and Evolution: Setting the Record Straight <”> and the New York Times, <“>Biology Text Illustrations more Fiction than Fact.<”> Meanwhile, others emphatically stated that the goal of comparative embryology was not to resurrect Haeckel's work. At the center of the controversy was Haeckel's no-longer-accepted idea of recapitulation. Haeckel believed that the development of an embryo revealed the adult stages of the organism's ancestors. Haeckel represented this idea with drawings of vertebrate embryos at similar developmental stages. This is Haeckel's embryo grid, the most common of all illustrations in biology textbooks. Yet, Haeckel's embryo grids are much more complex than any textbook explanation. I examined 240 high school biology textbooks, from 1907 to 2010, for embryo grids. I coded and categorized the grids according to accompanying discussion of (a) embryonic similarities (b) recapitulation, (c) common ancestors, and (d) evolution. The textbooks show changing narratives. Embryo grids gained prominence in the 1940s, and the trend continued until criticisms of Haeckel reemerged in the late 1990s, resulting in (a) grids with fewer organisms and developmental stages or (b) no grid at all. Discussion about embryos and evolution dropped significantly.
ContributorsWellner, Karen L (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin D. (Committee member) / Creath, Richard (Committee member) / Robert, Jason S. (Committee member) / Laubichler, Manfred D. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
At the interface of developmental biology and evolutionary biology, the very
criteria of scientific knowledge are up for grabs. A central issue is the status of evolutionary genetics models, which some argue cannot coherently be used with complex gene regulatory network (GRN) models to explain the same evolutionary phenomena. Despite those claims, many researchers use evolutionary genetics models jointly with GRN models to study evolutionary phenomena.
How do those researchers deploy those two kinds of models so that they are consistent and compatible with each other? To address that question, this dissertation closely examines, dissects, and compares two recent research projects in which researchers jointly use the two kinds of models. To identify, select, reconstruct, describe, and compare those cases, I use methods from the empirical social sciences, such as digital corpus analysis, content analysis, and structured case analysis.
From those analyses, I infer three primary conclusions about projects of the kind studied. First, they employ an implicit concept of gene that enables the joint use of both kinds of models. Second, they pursue more epistemic aims besides mechanistic explanation of phenomena. Third, they don’t work to create and export broad synthesized theories. Rather, they focus on phenomena too complex to be understood by a common general theory, they distinguish parts of the phenomena, and they apply models from different theories to the different parts. For such projects, seemingly incompatible models are synthesized largely through mediated representations of complex phenomena.
The dissertation closes by proposing how developmental evolution, a field traditionally focused on macroevolution, might fruitfully expand its research agenda to include projects that study microevolution.
criteria of scientific knowledge are up for grabs. A central issue is the status of evolutionary genetics models, which some argue cannot coherently be used with complex gene regulatory network (GRN) models to explain the same evolutionary phenomena. Despite those claims, many researchers use evolutionary genetics models jointly with GRN models to study evolutionary phenomena.
How do those researchers deploy those two kinds of models so that they are consistent and compatible with each other? To address that question, this dissertation closely examines, dissects, and compares two recent research projects in which researchers jointly use the two kinds of models. To identify, select, reconstruct, describe, and compare those cases, I use methods from the empirical social sciences, such as digital corpus analysis, content analysis, and structured case analysis.
From those analyses, I infer three primary conclusions about projects of the kind studied. First, they employ an implicit concept of gene that enables the joint use of both kinds of models. Second, they pursue more epistemic aims besides mechanistic explanation of phenomena. Third, they don’t work to create and export broad synthesized theories. Rather, they focus on phenomena too complex to be understood by a common general theory, they distinguish parts of the phenomena, and they apply models from different theories to the different parts. For such projects, seemingly incompatible models are synthesized largely through mediated representations of complex phenomena.
The dissertation closes by proposing how developmental evolution, a field traditionally focused on macroevolution, might fruitfully expand its research agenda to include projects that study microevolution.
ContributorsElliott, Steve (Author) / Creath, Richard (Thesis advisor) / Laubichler, Manfred D. (Thesis advisor) / Armendt, Brad (Committee member) / Forber, Patrick (Committee member) / Pratt, Stephen (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
Insecticide resistance is a continuing issue that negatively affects both public health and agriculture and allows vector-borne diseases to spread throughout the globe. To improve resistance management strategies (RMS), robust susceptibility bioassays need to be performed in order to fill the gap of the relationship between resistant and susceptible genotype and phenotype, and a deeper knowledge of how bioassay data relates to vector control success or failure is imperative. A bioassay method that is infrequently used but yields robust results is the topical application bioassay, where the insect is directly treated with a constant volume and concentration of an insecticide via a syringe. To bring more attention to this method, my colleagues and I published a paper in the Journal of Visualized Experiments where the optimized protocol of the topical application bioassay for mosquitoes and fruit flies is described, and the strengths and limitations to the method are explained. To further investigate insecticide susceptibility tests, I set up my individual project where I used Aedes aegypti mosquitoes to compare the topical application bioassay to the commonly used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bottle bioassay and World Health Organization (WHO) tube test. The objective of this study was to test which method exhibited the most variability in mortality results, which would guide the choice of assay to determine the link between resistant and susceptible genotype and phenotype. The results showed that the topical application method did indeed exhibit the least amount of variation, followed by the CDC bottle bioassay (WHO data is currently being collected). This suggests that the topical application bioassay could be a useful tool in insecticide resistance surveillance studies, and, depending on the goal, may be better than the CDC and WHO tube tests for assessing resistance levels at a given site. This study challenges the value of the widely used CDC and WHO assays and provides a discussion on the importance of technical and practical resistance assays. This will help vector control specialists to collect accurate surveillance data that will inform effective RMS.
ContributorsAlthoff, Rachel (Author) / Huijben, Silvie (Thesis advisor) / Harris, Robin (Committee member) / Collins, James (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
Transgenic experiments in Drosophila have proven to be a useful tool aiding in the
determination of mammalian protein function. A CNS specific protein, dCORL is a
member of the Sno/Ski family. Sno acts as a switch between Dpp/dActivin signaling.
dCORL is involved in Dpp and dActivin signaling, but the two homologous mCORL
protein functions are unknown. Conducting transgenic experiments in the adult wings,
and third instar larval brains using mCORL1, mCORL2 and dCORL are used to provide
insight into the function of these proteins. These experiments show mCORL1 has a
different function from mCORL2 and dCORL when expressed in Drosophila. mCORL2
and dCORL have functional similarities that are likely conserved. Six amino acid
substitutions between mCORL1 and mCORL2/dCORL may be the reason for the
functional difference. The evolutionary implications of this research suggest the
conservation of a switch between Dpp/dActivin signaling that predates the divergence of
arthropods and vertebrates.
determination of mammalian protein function. A CNS specific protein, dCORL is a
member of the Sno/Ski family. Sno acts as a switch between Dpp/dActivin signaling.
dCORL is involved in Dpp and dActivin signaling, but the two homologous mCORL
protein functions are unknown. Conducting transgenic experiments in the adult wings,
and third instar larval brains using mCORL1, mCORL2 and dCORL are used to provide
insight into the function of these proteins. These experiments show mCORL1 has a
different function from mCORL2 and dCORL when expressed in Drosophila. mCORL2
and dCORL have functional similarities that are likely conserved. Six amino acid
substitutions between mCORL1 and mCORL2/dCORL may be the reason for the
functional difference. The evolutionary implications of this research suggest the
conservation of a switch between Dpp/dActivin signaling that predates the divergence of
arthropods and vertebrates.
ContributorsStinchfield, Michael J (Author) / Newfeld, Stuart J (Thesis advisor) / Capco, David (Committee member) / Laubichler, Manfred (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Regulation of transcription initiation is a critical factor in the emergence of diverse biological phenotypes, including the development of multiple cell types from a single genotype, the ability of organisms to respond to environmental cues, and the rise of heritable diseases. Transcription initiation is regulated in large part by promoter regions of DNA. The identification and characterization of cis-regulatory regions, and understanding how these sequences differ across species, is a question of interest in evolution. To address this topic, I used the model organism Daphnia pulex, a well-characterized microcrustacean with an annotated genome sequence and selected a distribution of well-defined populations geographically located throughout the Midwestern US, Oregon, and Canada. Using isolated total RNA from adult, female Daphnia originating from the selected populations as well as a related taxon, Daphnia pulicaria (200,000 years diverged from D. pulex), I identified an average of over 14,000 (n=14,471) promoter regions using a novel transcription start site (TSS) profiling method, STRIPE-seq. Through the identification of sequence architecture, promoter class, conservation, and transcription start region (TSR) width, of cis-regulatory regions across the aforementioned Daphnia populations, I constructed a system for the study of promoter evolution, enabling a robust interpretation of promoter evolution in the context of the population-genetic environment. The methodology presented, coupled with the generated dataset, provides a foundation for the study of the evolution of promoters across both species and populations.
ContributorsSnyder, Shannon (Author) / Lynch, Michael (Thesis advisor) / Harris, Robin (Committee member) / Raborn, Randolph T (Committee member) / Wideman, Jeremy (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020