A skeletal preparation of a hatchling skate (Leucoraja erinacea), showing the head, gill arch and pectoral fin (cartilage in blue, mineralised tissue in red). Image credit: Sleight and Gillis (CC BY 4.0)
A common way to evolve new body parts is to copy existing ones and to remodel them. In insects for example, the antennae, mouth parts and legs all follow the same basic body plan, with modifications that adapt them for different uses. In the late 19th century, anatomist Karl Gegenbaur noticed a similar pattern in fish. He saw similarities between pairs of fins and pairs of gills, suggesting that one evolved from the other. But there is currently no fossil evidence documenting such a transformation.
Modern research has shown that the development of both gill and fin skeletons shares common genetic pathways. But the cells that form the two structures do not come from the same place. Gill skeletons develop from a part of the embryo called the neural crest, while fin skeletons come from a region called the mesoderm. One way to test Gegenbaur’s idea is to look more closely at the cells that form gill and fin skeletons as fish embryos develop. Here, Sleight and Gillis examined the gills and fins of a cartilaginous fish called Leucoraja erinacea, also known as the little skate.
Sleight and Gillis labelled the cells from the neural crest and mesoderm of little skate embryos with a fluorescent dye and then tracked the cells over several weeks. While the fins did form from mesoderm cells, the gills did not develop as expected. The first gill contained only neural crest cells, but the rest were a mixture of both cell types. This suggests that fins and gills develop from a common pool of cells that consists of both neural crest and mesoderm cells, which have the potential to develop into either body part. This previously unrecognised embryonic continuity between gills and fins explains why these structures respond in the same way to the same genetic cues, regardless of what cell type they develop from. Based on this new evidence, Sleight and Gillis believe that Gegenbaur was right, and that fins and gills do indeed share an evolutionary history.
While firm evidence for the transformation of gills into fins remains elusive, this work suggests it is possible. A deeper understanding of the process could shed light on the development of other repeated structures in nature. Research shows that animals use a relatively small number of genetic cues to set out their body plans. This can make it hard to use genetics alone to study their evolutionary history. But, looking at how different cell types respond to those cues to build anatomical features, like fins and gills, could help to fill in the gaps.
