Evolution: How geometry shapes division of labor
Our body is built from cells with dedicated roles: red blood cells transport oxygen, retinal cells detect light, and immune cells fight off pathogens. However, the earliest multicellular organisms did not have such specialized cells, and how the division of labor between cells first evolved remains unknown (Bonner, 2000; Brunet and King, 2017; van Gestel and Tarnita, 2017).
One of the best-studied examples of division of labor is between germ cells, which reproduce, and somatic cells, whose sole purpose is to ensure that the germ cells survive. Differentiation between germ and somatic cells has evolved repeatedly, and occurs even in simple multicellular organisms with far fewer cell types than animals, such as green algae or social amoebae. Because it is impossible to determine what selective pressures drove the evolution of germ-soma differentiation hundreds of millions of years ago, biologists have turned to mathematical models to understand how germ and soma cells came about (Gavrilets, 2010; Michod, 2007).
Models for the evolution of germ-soma differentiation start from the assumption that cells within a multicellular group can invest resources into the group’s survival, reproduction, or a combination of both. Using these models, researchers can ask what conditions allow specialized cells that only invest in reproduction (germ) or survival (soma) to evolve. Previous work revealed that division of labor can only evolve under stringent conditions where specialized cells have to be better (i.e. more efficient) at their job than non-specialized cells (Michod, 2007). But, these conditions may not necessarily have been met early on in the evolution of division of labor.
Now, in eLife, Peter Yunker, William Ratcliff and colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology – including David Yanni and Shane Jacobeen as joint first authors, Pedro Márquez-Zacarías and Joshua Weitz – report that the geometry of certain early multicellular organisms may have made it easier for division of labor to evolve (Yanni et al., 2020). The team developed a model for germ-soma differentiation that incorporates spatial structure. While earlier models assume survival investments are pooled together and shared amongst all cells, the model created by Yanni et al. assumes that a cell’s investment in survival is only shared with immediate neighbors (Figure 1). In this setup, the shape of the multicellular group plays a crucial role as it dictates which cells are neighbors.
Yanni et al. found that ‘sparse’ geometries in which cells have few neighbors — such as filaments and trees — are particularly conducive to the evolution of germ-soma differentiation. In these structures, regularly spaced cells take on the role of germ, while the interspaced cells become somatic to support the reproductive cells (Figure 1). The survival investments made by somatic cells are therefore now exclusively shared with germ cells, rather than with all cells in the group, including with other somatic cells. Yanni et al. showed that this efficient sharing of survival benefits relaxes the conditions under which division of labor can evolve: in sparse multicellular geometries, division of labor can even be favored when specialized cells are slightly less efficient than non-specialized ones.
Intriguingly, in many existing multicellular organisms, the spatial organization of germ and somatic cells mimics the pattern predicted by the model. For example, in cyanobacteria the role of somatic cells is taken on by specialized nitrogen fixers that are regularly spaced along filaments to support the surrounding reproductive cells (Flores and Herrero, 2010). And while complex multicellular organisms — which are beyond the reach of this model — typically do not have regularly spaced germ cells, glimpses of the predicted organization can still be seen. For instance, fruit fly egg cells develop from a cluster of interconnected cells of which only one becomes the egg, while the surrounding cells adopt a supporting role (Bastock and St Johnston, 2008; Alsous et al., 2018).
While models such as the one by Yanni et al. shed light on the evolutionary forces that shape cell differentiation, they tell us little about the underlying mechanisms (Márquez-Zacarías et al., 2020). These findings, however, provide a promising lead: if germ-soma differentiation is associated with a specific spatial organization, then its evolution requires developmental mechanisms that allow cells to differentiate according to their location. A future goal is then to understand how such developmental mechanisms originated in evolution.
References
-
Entropic effects in cell lineage tree packingsNature Physics 14:1016–1021.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0202-0
-
BookFirst Signals: The Evolution of Multicellular DevelopmentPrinceton University Press.https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400830589
-
The origin of animal multicellularity and cell differentiationDevelopmental Cell 43:124–140.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2017.09.016
-
Compartmentalized function through cell differentiation in filamentous cyanobacteriaNature Reviews Microbiology 8:39–50.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2242
-
Rapid transition towards the division of labor via evolution of developmental plasticityPLOS Computational Biology 6:e1000805.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000805
-
Evolution of cellular differentiation: from hypotheses to modelsTrends in Ecology & Evolution 13.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.07.013
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2020, Staps and Tarnita
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,269
- views
-
- 125
- downloads
-
- 1
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Further reading
-
- Evolutionary Biology
The rise of angiosperms to ecological dominance and the breakup of Gondwana during the Mesozoic marked major transitions in the evolutionary history of insect-plant interactions. To elucidate how contemporary trophic interactions were influenced by host plant shifts and palaeogeographical events, we integrated molecular data with information from the fossil record to construct a time tree for ancient phytophagous weevils of the beetle family Belidae. Our analyses indicate that crown-group Belidae originated approximately 138 Ma ago in Gondwana, associated with Pinopsida (conifer) host plants, with larvae likely developing in dead/decaying branches. Belids tracked their host plants as major plate movements occurred during Gondwana’s breakup, surviving on distant, disjunct landmasses. Some belids shifted to Angiospermae and Cycadopsida when and where conifers declined, evolving new trophic interactions, including brood-pollination mutualisms with cycads and associations with achlorophyllous parasitic angiosperms. Extant radiations of belids in the genera Rhinotia (Australian region) and Proterhinus (Hawaiian Islands) have relatively recent origins.
-
- Evolutionary Biology
Eyespot patterns have evolved in many prey species. These patterns were traditionally explained by the eye mimicry hypothesis, which proposes that eyespots resembling vertebrate eyes function as predator avoidance. However, it is possible that eyespots do not mimic eyes: according to the conspicuousness hypothesis, eyespots are just one form of vivid signals where only conspicuousness matters. They might work simply through neophobia or unfamiliarity, without necessarily implying aposematism or the unprofitability to potential predators. To test these hypotheses and explore factors influencing predators’ responses, we conducted a meta-analysis with 33 empirical papers that focused on bird responses to both real lepidopterans and artificial targets with conspicuous patterns (i.e. eyespots and non-eyespots). Supporting the latter hypothesis, the results showed no clear difference in predator avoidance efficacy between eyespots and non-eyespots. When comparing geometric pattern characteristics, bigger pattern sizes and smaller numbers of patterns were more effective in preventing avian predation. This finding indicates that single concentric patterns have stronger deterring effects than paired ones. Taken together, our study supports the conspicuousness hypothesis more than the eye mimicry hypothesis. Due to the number and species coverage of published studies so far, the generalisability of our conclusion may be limited. The findings highlight that pattern conspicuousness is key to eliciting avian avoidance responses, shedding a different light on this classic example of signal evolution.