Next Article in Journal
Monitoring the Methyl Eugenol Response and Non-Responsiveness Mechanisms in Oriental Fruit Fly Bactrocera dorsalis in China
Next Article in Special Issue
Staying Dry and Clean: An Insect’s Guide to Hydrophobicity
Previous Article in Journal
Flightless Females in the Neotropical Moth Genus Cataspilates Warren (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) †
Previous Article in Special Issue
Feeding Preferences and Responses of Monochamus saltuarius to Volatile Components of Host Pine Trees
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/insects13111000
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Developmental Plasticity in Butterfly Eyespot Mutants: Variation in Thermal Reaction Norms across Genotypes and Pigmentation Traits

by
Ana Rita Amaro Mateus
1 and
Patrícia Beldade
1,2,3,*
1
Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência (IGC), 2780-156 Oeiras, Portugal
2
CNRS—UMR 5174, Evolution et Diversité Biologique (EDB), Université Paul Sabatier (UPS), 31077 Toulouse, France
3
Center for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c) & Global Change and Sustainability Institute (CHANGE), Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon (FCUL), 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2022, 13(11), 1000; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111000
Submission received: 25 September 2022 / Revised: 25 October 2022 / Accepted: 28 October 2022 / Published: 31 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contributions of Women in Insect Science)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The temperature experienced during organismal development can affect adult phenotypes. This phenomenon is called thermal developmental plasticity and is common for insect pigmentation. Plasticity can help organisms cope with environmental heterogeneity, such as that across yearly seasons, and might also impact how populations deal with environmental perturbation, such as climate change. Because plasticity can be adaptive and heritable, it is liable to evolve. The evolution of plasticity will depend on the availability of genetic variation contributing to variation in plasticity, and on the integration across plastic traits, which might limit opportunities for their independent evolutionary change. Here we address these two topics by focusing on thermal plasticity in butterfly wing pattern elements called eyespots, which are composed of concentric rings of different colors. We found differences in plasticity between genotypes and concluded that mutants of strong effect on pigmentation can also affect thermal plasticity therein. We also found differences in plasticity between distinct pigmentation features, suggesting plasticity can evolve somewhat independently for those features.

Abstract

Developmental plasticity refers to the property by which a genotype corresponds to distinct phenotypes depending on the environmental conditions experienced during development. This dependence of phenotype expression on environment is graphically represented by reaction norms, which can differ between traits and between genotypes. Even though genetic variation for reaction norms provides the basis for the evolution of plasticity, we know little about the genes that contribute to that variation. This includes understanding to what extent those are the same genes that contribute to inter-individual variation in a fixed environment. Here, we quantified thermal plasticity in butterfly lines that differ in pigmentation phenotype to test the hypothesis that alleles affecting pigmentation also affect plasticity therein. We characterized thermal reaction norms for eyespot color rings of distinct Bicyclus anynana genetic backgrounds, corresponding to allelic variants affecting eyespot size and color composition. Our results reveal genetic variation for the slope and curvature of reaction norms, with differences between eyespots and between eyespot color rings, as well as between sexes. Our report of prevalent temperature-dependent and compartment-specific allelic effects underscores the complexity of genotype-by-environment interactions and their consequence for the evolution of developmental plasticity.

1. Introduction

Developmental plasticity refers to the property by which the same genotype results in distinct phenotypes depending on the environmental conditions experienced during development (reviewed in [1,2,3]). There are many examples of this environmental sensitivity of development, including different types of environmental triggers and various types of plastic traits. For example, nutrition largely determines whether bee and ant larvae develop into workers or queens, which differ in morphological, life-history, and behavioral traits; the density of conspecifics determines whether Schistocerca nymphs produce gregarious or solitary locusts, which also differ in body pigmentation (reviewed in [4]); and temperature and/or photoperiod affect wing pigmentation patterns in various butterfly species, which can also differ in physiology and life histories (reviewed in [5,6,7]). In some cases, when the triggering environmental cue is predictive of future environmental conditions, developmental plasticity can result in a better match between the organism’s phenotype and the conditions it will live in. As such, this plasticity can help organisms cope with environmental heterogeneity and be adaptive (reviewed in [2]). This is particularly compelling in the case of seasonal polyphenisms, corresponding to the production of distinct discrete phenotypes adjusted to the conditions of different seasons [5,6,7,8].
Studies on a variety of insect species have provided valuable insight into the ecological significance and the mechanistic underpinnings of plasticity (e.g., [7,9,10,11]), discussed how plasticity may impact evolutionary diversification [12] and resilience to environmental perturbation [13], and discussed the origin and evolution of plasticity (e.g., [14,15,16]). Towards the latter topic, it is important to consider: (1) the genetic variation for plasticity, which provides raw material for selection to act on (e.g., [17,18]), and (2) the integration between co-affected plastic traits, which may condition their independent evolution (e.g., [19]). Central to these studies is the concept of reaction norms (RNs) [20], a graphical representation of plasticity in which phenotype is displayed as a function of environmental conditions. Reaction norms can differ in intercept, slope, and curvature (cf. [21]) depending on the environmental cue and trait considered, as well as on genotype (reviewed in [18]). Heritable variation for reaction norms can fuel the evolution of plasticity, of which there are various examples in natural and experimental populations [14,21,22,23,24,25,26].
Despite great progress in the dissection of the genetic basis of variation and evolutionary change in many adaptive traits (compiled in [27]), not much is known about the genetic basis of variation in reaction norms. Are there “genes for plasticity” [28]? Which genes contribute to inter-genotype differences in plasticity (e.g., [17])? To what extent are those the same genes that contribute to inter-individual variation in trait values within a fixed environment (see [18])? These questions relate to asking about environment-specific allelic effects, or about genotype-by-environment (GxE) effects. Here, we characterized thermal reaction norms for spontaneous pigmentation mutants to assess the extent of GxE interactions and to test the hypothesis that alleles affecting pigmentation also affect plasticity therein. By investigating distinct pigmentation components of multiple serially repeated color pattern elements, we further tested the extent of trait-specific, or spatial compartmentalization of, plasticity. The integration between plastic traits is fundamental for ensuring coherent whole-body phenotypes and can condition their independent evolution.
We focused on an evolutionary ecology model of developmental plasticity, seasonal polyphenism in Bicyclus anynana wing pattern ornaments called eyespots (reviewed in [5,29,30,31,32]). B. anynana butterflies have eyespots along the margins of their wings, each composed of a central white focus, a middle black ring, and an external golden ring. In early pupae, presumptive eyespot foci produce a substance that diffuses away to create a concentration gradient, which informs neighboring epidermal cells about their position relative to the focus. These cells thereby become fated to produce the different color pigments that make up eyespot rings (recently reviewed in [31]). The focal signal strength and the epidermal response sensitivity to that signal determine eyespot size [5], which can vary also depending on developmental temperature (e.g., [22]).
Studies of thermal plasticity in B. anynana eyespots combine analyses of the mechanisms regulating eyespot plasticity with knowledge about the ecological significance and evolution of that plasticity (different aspects reviewed in [5,13,29,30,31,33]). In natural populations of B. anynana, plasticity in ventral wing patterns is associated with distinct seasonal strategies to avoid predation [34]. While the larger and brighter eyespots of wet-season butterflies are thought to attract predators’ attention to the wing margin and away from the vulnerable body, the mostly brown dry-season butterflies, with inconspicuous eyespots, are cryptic against the background of dry leaves characteristic of that season [33,35,36,37]. In the laboratory, ambient temperature during development determines the production of alternative phenotypes resembling the natural wet and dry seasonal forms [29]. While both temperature (T)- and genotype (G)-based variations in B. anynana eyespot size have been relatively well characterized (e.g., [29,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]), much less is known about genotype-by-temperature (GxT) interactions.
Here, we focus on spontaneous mutant alleles of large effect on eyespot morphology to ask about GxT effects and test the hypothesis that alleles that contribute to variation in pigmentation (within temperatures) also contribute to variation in levels of pigmentation plasticity. We do this by characterizing thermal reaction norms for the size of eyespot color rings for B. anynana mutants with altered eyespot size or color composition. Looking at different aspects of eyespot patterns, including different individual eyespots on the same and distinct wings, as well as different color rings of individual eyespots allows us to assess spatial compartmentalization or cross-trait interaction of GxT effects. We show evidence for pervasive GxT effects, with differences in reaction norms between pigmentation mutants, indicating that pigmentation genes can also affect thermal plasticity in pigmentation. We also show that reaction norms differ between color rings and between individual eyespots, in a manner that can vary between the sexes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals

We used captive populations of Bicyclus anynana butterflies with different pigmentation phenotypes (Figure 1): an outbred stock representing the “wild-type” phenotype (WT, [29]); a larval color mutant with wild-type adult pigmentation, called Chocolate (Choc, [46]); and two eyespot mutants, Bigeye (BE), affecting eyespot size, and Frodo (Fr), affecting eyespot color composition [47]. While the Choc stock is pure-breeding for the mutant allele, BE and Fr stocks always segregate for mutant and wild-type-looking individuals, as the respective causative alleles are recessive embryonic lethal [47]. Individuals heterozygous for the BE mutant allele have overall enlarged eyespots, and individuals heterozygous for the Fr mutant allele have a higher golden-to-black ratio. We use the term “genotype” to refer to each of the four stocks differing in pigmentation phenotype, even though there is genetic variation within stocks, i.e., they are not isogenic.
About 120 first-instar larvae from each stock were transferred into each of three climate-controlled rooms (70% relative humidity, 12:12 h light:dark cycle) differing in ambient temperature (±0.5 °C). We chose temperatures typically used to induce experimentally the natural dry (19 °C) and wet (27 °C) seasonal morphs, and an intermediate temperature (23 °C). Larvae were kept in large cages and fed ad libitum with young maize plants sprayed with anti-fungal solution. Adults were frozen 24 h after eclosion, and their wings were cut and stored in the freezer until analysis. Due to a microsporidial infection in all laboratory stocks, we obtained fewer than 120 adults per stock per temperature. Final sample sizes are provided in supplementary File S2.

2.2. Pigmentation Traits

The ventral surfaces of the undamaged right forewing and hindwing of adult females and males were photographed (Leica DC200 digital camera) under a binocular microscope (Leica MZ12) at 10× magnification. This was performed under controlled light conditions, using the support of a ruler for conversion from pixels to millimeters and a color reference card (QPcard 201) for color calibration and background correction. The resulting images were analyzed with a custom image processing system (cf. [43]) using the ImageJ-based open-source Fiji software package [48]. Briefly, areas of eyespot color rings were calculated by a threshold method in which the image was converted to black and white, the values of intensity under or above user-established thresholds were selected and user-validated, and corresponding areas were determined. Each of these areas corresponds to one color ring and excludes other color rings inside it. In total, we measured eight areas characterizing eyespot color rings (Figure 1), as well as the total areas of both fore- and hindwing. The eight eyespot traits correspond to the middle black ring and external golden ring of the two eyespots on the ventral surface of the forewing (the anterior eyespot, eA, and the posterior eyespot, eP), as well as of two of the seven eyespots on the ventral surface of the hindwing (the second and the fifth eyespots, e2 and e5, respectively, corresponding to the equivalent positions of eA and eP, cf. wing venation). This selection includes representatives of the anterior and posterior compartments of both wings (cf. [49]), as well as the eyespot typically targeted in studies of thermal plasticity in B. anynana, e5 (e.g., [16,43,50,51,52]).

2.3. Statistical Analyses

All data analyses were performed in R [53], separately for females and males, already known to differ in wing size and pigmentation. In all statistical models, we used “genotype” to refer to the different genetic backgrounds. We tested for the impact of temperature (T), genotype (G), and their interaction (GxT) on different plastic traits. We considered temperature (three levels: 19 °C, 23 °C, and 27 °C) and genotype (four levels: WT, Fr, BE, and Choc) as fixed factors in general linear models assuming a Gaussian distribution of errors. Prior to that, parametric assumptions were considered by checking for normality (Shapiro–Wilk test, alpha = 0.05) and homoscedasticity (Fligner–Killeen test, alpha = 0.05) of residuals, and transforming data where appropriate. When a significant difference (alpha = 0.05) was found for the effects of G and/or T, we performed post hoc pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) tests (alpha = 0.01).
First, for each of our eight target eyespot traits (Figure 1), we tested for differences between temperatures and genotypes and for the interactions between these two factors. We used the model ring_area~wing_area + temperature*genotype, with temperature (three levels: 19 °C, 23 °C, 27 °C) and genotype (four levels: WT, Choc, BE, Fr) as fixed factors and wing_area as a covariate. Second, we used principal component analysis (PCA) [54] to reduce and explore the patterns of variation for the eight eyespot rings. In order to be able to handle missing values, we used the R packages FactoMineR [55] and missMDA [56]. PCA was run using the values of eyespot ring area/wing area. We stored and represented graphically the scores for the first four principal components, hereafter referred to as dimensions (Dims; terminology in agreement with the R package we used). We then characterized the reaction norms for each of these Dims and tested the model Dim~temperature*genotype, with temperature and genotype as fixed factors.
Finally, we compared wild-type-looking and mutant-looking individuals that segregate within each of the BE and Fr stocks. Note that we did not include the wild-type-looking individuals from the BE and Fr stocks in the previous analyses. We tested the model ring_area~wing_area + temperature*phenotype using a general linear model with a Gaussian distribution of error. This was performed for the BE and Fr stocks separately, with temperature (three levels: 19 °C, 23 °C, 27 °C) and phenotype (two levels: mutant, wild type) as fixed factors and wing_area as a covariate.

3. Results

To quantify eyespot thermal plasticity in B. anynana pigmentation variants, we collected phenotypic data from individuals of four different genetic backgrounds reared at three developmental temperatures (Figure 1; data in File S1). We compared eyespot ring area between genotypes and rearing temperatures (Figure 2 and File S2), and we compared thermal reaction norms for the main principal components defined by our eyespot measurements (Figure 3 and File S3). For the two lines carrying alleles of large effect on eyespot morphology, we compared thermal reaction norms between sibling wild-type-looking (homozygous for wild-type allele) and mutant-looking individuals (heterozygous for mutant allele) (Figure 4 and File S4). Our analysis probed the effects of temperature (T), genetic line (G), and their interaction (GxT) on phenotype. Significant T effects reveal that traits are thermally plastic, significant G effects reveal differences between genetic backgrounds, and significant GxT effects reflect differences between genetic variants (either lines or allelic variants within stocks) in their thermal reaction norms.

3.1. Genotype, Temperature, and Genotype-by-Temperature Effects on Eyespot Color Rings

We investigated temperature-induced variation for the area of the golden and black rings of the anterior and posterior eyespots on the forewing (eA and eP) and for the two eyespots on equivalent positions on the hindwing (e2 and e5) in four genetic lines (Figure 1). We observed extensive variation in total eyespot size and size of their color rings, with differences across genotypes (with BE having larger eyespots and Fr having relatively larger golden relative to black rings) and temperatures (with larger color rings with increasing temperatures), but also between individual eyespots (with e2 typically being the smallest and eP the largest) and between sexes (typically larger in females relative to males). There were significant G and T effects for all traits, and significant GxT effects for all but the golden rings of the posterior eyespots (eP and e5) in males (Figure 2 and supplementary File S2).
In Figure 2, connecting the heights of the three adjacent histogram bars, relative to the three experimental temperatures, effectively represents the thermal reaction norm for each trait. We observed differences between genotypes in reaction norm intercept (reflecting differences in trait values within temperatures, e.g., black ring in eP and e5 in males), slope (corresponding to differences in trait values across consecutive temperature values, e.g., black ring in e5 in females), and shape (corresponding to where phenotypes at 23 °C stand relative to the two extreme temperatures, e.g., female eA black 19 > 23~27 while eA gold 19 > 23 > 27). Globally, and for both sexes, BE individuals showed the most pronounced differences between temperatures (i.e., steepest reaction norms), with eyespot ring areas differing the most from wild-type-looking eyespots at 27 °C. BE reaction norms also stood out for the intercept, notably for the black ring, larger than those of wild-type butterflies.

3.2. Principal Component Analysis

The PCA describing the patterns of variation for the eight eyespot traits (4 eyespots × 2 color rings) in butterflies from our four target genetic stocks reared at three temperatures reduced variation to four main Dims, together accounting for about 94% of the variation in our female and male datasets (Figure 3). The loadings for the different eyespot traits revealed how each of them contributed to defining each of the Dims (Figure 3a): high absolute values versus values close to zero reflecting high versus low contribution, and positive versus negative values reflecting contrasting contributions. The thermal reaction norms for the main Dims (Figure 3b and File S3) allowed us to assess how plastic each of them was for the different genetic stocks. Finally, the plot of how our measured individuals are distributed in the space defined by pairs of Dims revealed which variance components (G and/or T) are being separated along each Dim (supplementary File S3).
For both females and males, all eyespot traits seemed to contribute equivalently to defining Dim 1, which explained more than 70% of the variation in each respective dataset (70.8% for females and 77.7% for males; Figure 3a). Dim 1 was significantly affected by developmental temperature (df = 2, p < 2.2 × 10−16 for both females, F = 313.0, and males, F = 333.2), by genotype (df = 3, p < 2.2 × 10−16 for both females, F = 94.9, and males, F = 146.6), and by the interaction between these two factors (females: F = 19.4, df = 6, p < 2.2 × 10−16; males: F = 6.1, df = 6, p = 6.0 × 1016). WT was the least plastic genotype for Dim 1 (i.e., with smaller differences between temperature extremes, corresponding to a flatter reaction norm), and BE (eyespot size mutant) stood out once more for the intercept of Dim 1 reaction norm relative to all other lines (i.e., higher Dim 1 values relative to the other genotypes for both temperatures).
Dim 2 accounted for 13.4% of the variation in the female dataset and 7.4% of the variation in the male dataset, but it was similar for both datasets in that it largely contrasted black versus gold eyespot rings (loadings of opposite sign for the two colors) (Figure 3a). Two traits stood out in both datasets: the black area of eyespot e2 and the gold area of eyespot eP with loadings closer to zero, suggestive of little contribution to Dim 2. Dim 2 was significantly affected by genotype (df = 3, p < 2.2 × 10−16 for females, F = 258.7, and males, F = 140.5) and by genotype x temperature (females: F = 4.5, df = 6, p = 0.0002; males: F = 9.6, df = 6, p = 2.6 × 10−9) for both sexes. Differences between temperatures were marginally significant in the female dataset (F = 3.1, df = 2, p = 0.04) but not in the male dataset (F = 1.3, df = 2, p = 0.26). Dim 2 for Fr stood out from that of other genotypes, in both intercept and slope (Figure 3b).
Evaluating how the individuals we measured are distributed in the space defined by Dim 1 and Dim 2 (supplementary File S3), it becomes apparent that Dim 1, corresponding to the overall variation in eyespot size, mostly separated rearing temperatures, while Dim 2, contrasting gold and black rings, mostly separated genotypes. On the other hand, Dims 3 and 4, which together accounted for around 10% of the variation in the datasets and appeared to reflect contrasts between anterior versus posterior eyespots and fore- versus hindwing eyespots (Figure 3a), did not separate anything obvious in the datasets and had thermal reaction norms that were relatively flat and similar across genotypes (supplementary File S3).

3.3. Comparing Individuals Differing at Specific Pigmentation Loci

We wanted to test whether BE and Fr alleles, two alleles affecting different aspects of eyespot morphology (Figure 1 and Figure 2), had temperature-specific effects that resulted in differences in thermal reaction norms for eyespot color rings. We focused on the posterior eyespots on equivalent positions of the fore- and hindwings (eP and e5 in Figure 1); those are larger relative to the anterior eyespots (eA and e2) and include e5, which is the eyespot typically used in studies of wing pattern plasticity in B. anynana. We compared eyespots eP and e5 between siblings within each of the genetic stocks (Figure 4 and File S4). These sibling individuals differed in which allele they carried at the target pigmentation locus, but not in overall genetic background, allowing us to specifically test the effects of single allelic variants.
For both color rings in both eyespots and both sexes, there were significant GxT interactions (i.e., clear and significant differences in slope and shape of thermal reaction norms) between the four “genotypes” (Figure 4a; File S4). However, differences in plasticity between allelic variants were not seen in all cases. Rather, they depended on sex, eyespot, and/or color ring being analyzed. For the BE line, even though the reaction norms for siblings were clearly different in intercept, with both color rings being larger in BE relative to wild-type phenotype siblings, there were no significant GxT effects for any of the traits in males, nor for the golden ring of e5 in females. For the Fr line, reaction norms also differed in intercept (Fr relative to wild-type-looking siblings had smaller black rings and larger golden rings), while significant GxT effects were observed for eP (both color rings in males and black ring in females) but not for e5 (both color rings in both sexes). These results show that alleles with a large effect on pigmentation phenotypes can have temperature-specific effects and thus also contribute to variation in thermal plasticity in pigmentation. However, that was not observed for all traits analyzed.

4. Discussion

We investigated thermal plasticity for the size of color rings of two eyespots on each of two wing surfaces in distinct B. anynana genetic lines differing in pigmentation phenotype (Figure 1). This allowed us to address two important properties of adaptive developmental plasticity, which can impact its evolution: (1) genetic variation for plasticity, corresponding to differences in reaction norms across genotypes, and (2) integration between plastic traits, corresponding to differences between reaction norms across individual eyespots or across their color rings. We know that plasticity evolves, and there are various examples in both natural and experimental populations [14,21,23,24,25], including for Bicyclus butterflies [22,26,45]. However, we still know surprisingly little about the genes that contribute to variation in plasticity and can fuel its evolution (discussed in [18]), as well as about the integration across plastic traits that might constrain their independent evolution (discussed in [49]).
By comparing thermal reaction norms between genetic lines, we found abundant examples of inter-genotype differences in plasticity. We documented significant GxT interactions, corresponding to inter-genotype differences in slope and/or curvature of thermal reaction norms, for the size of eyespot rings (Figure 2), as well as for the first principal component reflecting overall variation in eyespot size (Dim 1; Figure 3). There are reports of pervasive GxT interactions for various organisms and traits [57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64], but there are fewer examples in which the contribution of specific loci to variation in plasticity is tested. By focusing on plasticity for genetic lines featuring specific allelic variants known to affect pigmentation (Figure 1), we tested the hypothesis that genes contributing to pigmentation variation also contribute to variation in plasticity therein, which does not need to be the case (discussed in [18]). We found that individuals bearing mutant alleles of large effect on eyespot phenotype, namely BE and Fr, had reaction norms for eyespot ring size that could be significantly different from sibling individuals with wild-type alleles (Figure 4 and File S4). This means that the effects of these allelic variants on eyespot phenotype differ between temperatures or, conversely, that temperature effects on eyespot phenotype differ between genotypes. Such GxT interactions reflect differences in plasticity between allelic variants at the target loci and confirm the hypothesis that alleles affecting pigmentation can also affect thermal plasticity in pigmentation. This result, concerning mutant alleles of large effect on B. anynana eyespots (deliberately maintained in laboratory populations), contrasts with results from previous studies concerning alleles of more subtle phenotypic effect (segregating in large, outbred populations). In our study, we found that eyespot variants can differ in slope and curvature of thermal reaction norms. However, previous artificial selection experiments targeting quantitative variation, albeit able to alter eyespot size [38,39,40] and alter the intercept of reaction norms for eyespot size, were unable to alter the shape of those reaction norms [22,52]. This suggests that there was no segregating genetic variation for the slope or curvature of those thermal reaction norms. Low genetic variance for the shape of thermal reaction norms has been documented also in other systems [65], as has the apparent contrast between alleles of large and subtle effect. Studies in Drosophila melanogaster have shown that mutants of large phenotypic effect can affect thermal plasticity [58], including for body pigmentation [66,67,68,69]. In contrast, studies on quantitative variation revealed no overlap between QTLs contributing to intra-temperature variation and QTLs contributing to variation in thermal plasticity [17].
By analyzing thermal plasticity for the size of two color rings of distinct eyespots, we addressed the level of spatial compartmentalization, or of trait-specificity of plasticity and GxT effects. Specifically, we focused on two levels of the integration of plasticity: integration across pigmentation features (i.e., individual eyespots) and integration across components thereof (i.e., rings of color). B. anynana butterflies display serially repeated eyespots along the wing margins, each composed of white, black, and golden color rings produced in response to a concentration gradient of a signaling molecule diffusing from the presumptive eyespot center in developing pupal wings (cellular and genetic mechanisms reviewed in [31]). Eyespots tend to change in concert in relation to genetic (alleles of large and subtle effects [38,47,49,70]) and to environmental (notably, developmental temperature [30,43]) input. However, there is also some level of eyespot- and/or ring-specific responses, i.e., of spatial compartmentalization of the response to both types of input: (1) segregating genetic variation allowing independent evolutionary change in the overall size, but not the relative size of black and golden rings [71], of individual eyespots [39,40], and (2) differences between eyespots and between color rings [43] in response to external developmental temperature and/or to the internal ecdysone titers in pupae that mediate thermal plasticity in B. anynana [16,51,72]. This study addressed the interaction between genetic and environmental input by focusing on the effects of specific pigmentation genetic variants and developmental temperature. The results of the PCA summarizing axes of variation highlight patterns of integration between traits, a property which both reflects and potentially conditions their evolutionary history [49]. In particular, the second to fourth principal components, together accounting for over 15% of the variation in our datasets, contrasted individual eyespots and/or color rings (Figure 3a). Spatial compartmentalization of thermal plasticity in pigmentation has also been documented for other insects, including differences in reaction norms between melanization traits in Pieris butterflies [19], between abdominal segments in D. melanogaster [73], and between pigmentation components in Drosophila flies [74]. Moreover, previous studies have also found differences in QTLs responsible for plasticity in different body parts [17]. More generally, and even though thermal plasticity typically includes a series of traits changing in concert, often creating organism-wide phenotypes adjusted to conditions and collectively referred to as “plasticity syndromes” (see discussion in [50]), there are often trait-specific reaction norms. This is the case for the traits making up plasticity syndromes in B. anynana [72,75], for which reaction norms can evolve independently on each other [26]. Differences in reaction norms across plastic traits have also been documented for other species [76,77]. It is unclear how differences between traits that are part of the same plasticity syndrome come about. There might be differences in timing and/or level of sensitivity to environmental cues and/or to the hormones that convey information about those cues to developing tissues (shown also for B. anynana eyespots; e.g., [43,44]), as well as in downstream gene regulation (as shown for plasticity in D. melanogaster organ size; e.g., [78,79]). Further studies characterizing the molecular basis of plasticity, from whole-body hormonal signals to tissue-specific genetic mechanisms (e.g., [11,80]), as well as the link between the two (e.g., [9,81,82]), will be valuable in this respect.
Developmental plasticity is not only a mechanistically interesting and ecologically relevant property, but also one with tight connections to adaptive evolution (discussed in [18]). On the one hand, plasticity is heritable and can be adaptive, and, as such, it can and does evolve. On the other hand, plasticity has been argued to impact adaptive evolution, facilitating phenotypic and taxonomic diversification [12], and to affect population persistence and adaptation to environmental change, notably in insects [13]. In order to identify general principles about the evolution of plasticity, it is important to continue to add studies expanding on trait and taxonomic diversity. Crucially, it will be valuable to have studies investigating the combined effects of multiple environmental variables on multiple traits and in multiple genotypes, as this is the scenario that best represents natural populations and the challenges they face [13].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/insects13111000/s1, File S1: Data on eyespot ring areas; File S2: Statistical analysis of T, G, and GxT effects on eyespot ring area; File S3: Extra analysis on principal components; File S4: Comparing color rings of eyespots eP and e5 between genotypes and allelic variants in males.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R.A.M. and P.B.; data collection, A.R.A.M.; data analysis, A.R.A.M.; writing, A.R.A.M. and P.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Financial support for this work was provided by the Portuguese science funding agency, Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, FCT: PhD fellowship to ARM (SFRH/BD/45486/2008), and research grants to PB (PTDC/BIA-EVF/0017/2014, PTDC/BIA-EVL/0321/2021).

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting reported results can be found in supplementary File S1.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Erik van Bergen for help processing the experimental animals, Pedro Almada for help with image analysis, David Duneau for help with statistical analysis, Manuel Marques-Pita for the symbols representing different eyespot rings, Joel Laia for comments on the manuscript, and three anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. West-Eberhard, M.J. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020; ISBN 978-0-19-988073-7. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beldade, P.; Mateus, A.R.A.; Keller, R.A. Evolution and molecular mechanisms of adaptive developmental plasticity. Mol. Ecol. 2011, 20, 1347–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gilbert, S.F. Ecological developmental biology: Environmental signals for normal animal development. Evol. Dev. 2012, 14, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Simpson, S.J.; Sword, G.A.; Lo, N. Polyphenism in Insects. Curr. Biol. 2011, 21, R738–R749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Beldade, P.; Brakefield, P.M. The genetics and evo–devo of butterfly wing patterns. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2002, 3, 442–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Brakefield, P.M.; Zwaan, B.J. Seasonal Polyphenisms and Environmentally Induced Plasticity in the Lepidoptera: The Coor-dinated Evolution of Many Traits on Multiple Levels. In Mechanisms of Life History Evolution: The Genetics and Physiology of Life History Traits and Trade-Offs; Flatt, T., Heyland, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 243–252. [Google Scholar]
  7. van der Burg, K.R.; Reed, R.D. Seasonal plasticity: How do butterfly wing pattern traits evolve environmental responsiveness? Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2021, 69, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nijhout, H.F. Development and evolution of adaptive polyphenisms. Evol. Dev. 2003, 5, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Daniels, E.V.; Murad, R.; Mortazavi, A.; Reed, R.D. Extensive transcriptional response associated with seasonal plasticity of butterfly wing patterns. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23, 6123–6134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kijimoto, T.; Moczek, A.P. Hedgehog signaling enables nutrition-responsive inhibition of an alternative morph in a polyphenic beetle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 5982–5987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Schrader, L.; Simola, D.F.; Heinze, J.; Oettler, J. Sphingolipids, Transcription Factors, and Conserved Toolkit Genes: Developmental Plasticity in the Ant Cardiocondyla obscurior. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2015, 32, 1474–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Moczek, A.P.; Sultan, S.; Foster, S.; Ledón-Rettig, C.; Dworkin, I.; Nijhout, H.F.; Abouheif, E.; Pfennig, D.W. The role of developmental plasticity in evolutionary innovation. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2011, 278, 2705–2713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rodrigues, Y.K.; Beldade, P. Thermal Plasticity in Insects’ Response to Climate Change and to Multifactorial Environments. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 8, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Suzuki, Y.; Nijhout, H.F. Evolution of a Polyphenism by Genetic Accommodation. Science 2006, 311, 650–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Nijhout, H.F. To plasticity and back again. eLife 2015, 4, e06995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bhardwaj, S.; Jolander, L.S.-H.; Wenk, M.R.; Oliver, J.C.; Nijhout, H.F.; Monteiro, A. Origin of the mechanism of phenotypic plasticity in satyrid butterfly eyespots. eLife 2020, 9, e49544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lafuente, E.; Duneau, D.; Beldade, P. Genetic basis of thermal plasticity variation in Drosophila melanogaster body size. PLoS Genet. 2018, 14, e1007686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Lafuente, E.; Beldade, P. Genomics of Developmental Plasticity in Animals. Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Stoehr, A.M.; Wojan, E.M. Multiple cues influence multiple traits in the phenotypically plastic melanization of the cabbage white butterfly. Oecologia 2016, 182, 691–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Schlichting, C.; Pigliucci, M. Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective; Sinauer: Sunderland, MA, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0-87893-799-8. [Google Scholar]
  21. Murren, C.J.; Maclean, H.J.; Diamond, S.E.; Steiner, U.K.; Heskel, M.A.; Handelsman, C.A.; Ghalambor, C.K.; Auld, J.R.; Callahan, H.S.; Pfennig, D.W.; et al. Evolutionary Change in Continuous Reaction Norms. Am. Nat. 2014, 183, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Brakefield, P.M.; Gates, J.; Keys, D.; Kesbeke, F.; Wijngaarden, P.J.; Montelro, A.; French, V.; Carroll, S.B. Development, plasticity and evolution of butterfly eyespot patterns. Nature 1996, 384, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aubret, F.; Shine, R. Genetic Assimilation and the Postcolonization Erosion of Phenotypic Plasticity in Island Tiger Snakes. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19, 1932–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bento, G.; Ogawa, A.; Sommer, R.J. Co-option of the hormone-signalling module dafachronic acid–DAF-12 in nematode evolution. Nature 2010, 466, 494–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hallsson, L.R.; Björklund, M. Selection in a fluctuating environment leads to decreased genetic variation and facilitates the evolution of phenotypic plasticity: Evolutionary Response in a Fluctuating Environment. J. Evol. Biol. 2012, 25, 1275–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Oostra, V.; Brakefield, P.M.; Hiltemann, Y.; Zwaan, B.J.; Brattström, O. On the fate of seasonally plastic traits in a rainforest butterfly under relaxed selection. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4, 2654–2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Courtier-Orgogozo, V.; Arnoult, L.; Prigent, S.R.; Wiltgen, S.; Martin, A. Gephebase, a database of genotype–phenotype relationships for natural and domesticated variation in Eukaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 48, D696–D703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Via, S.; Gomulkiewicz, R.; De Jong, G.; Scheiner, S.M.; Schlichting, C.D.; Van Tienderen, P.H. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity: Consensus and controversy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1995, 10, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brakefield, P.M.; Beldade, P.; Zwaan, B.J. The African Butterfly Bicyclus anynana: A Model for Evolutionary Genetics and Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2009, 2009, pdb.emo122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Beldade, P.; Peralta, C.M. Developmental and evolutionary mechanisms shaping butterfly eyespots. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2017, 19, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Beldade, P.; Monteiro, A. Eco-evo-devo advances with butterfly eyespots. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2021, 69, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Monteiro, A. Physiology and Evolution of Wing Pattern Plasticity in Bicyclus Butterflies: A Critical Review of the Literature. In Diversity and Evolution of Butterfly Wing Patterns; Sekimura, T., Nijhout, H.F., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 91–105. ISBN 978-9-81-104955-2. [Google Scholar]
  33. Brakefield, P.; Frankino, W. Polyphenisms in Lepidoptera: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Studies of Evolution and Devel-opment. In Phenotypic Plasticity of Insects; Whitman, D., Ananthakrishnan, T., Eds.; Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; ISBN 978-1-57-808423-4. [Google Scholar]
  34. Brakefield, P.M.; Larsen, T.B. The evolutionary significance of dry and wet season forms in some tropical butterflies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1984, 22, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Olofsson, M.; Vallin, A.; Jakobsson, S.; Wiklund, C. Marginal Eyespots on Butterfly Wings Deflect Bird Attacks Under Low Light Intensities with UV Wavelengths. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Prudic, K.L.; Stoehr, A.M.; Wasik, B.R.; Monteiro, A. Eyespots deflect predator attack increasing fitness and promoting the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2015, 282, 20141531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. van Bergen, E.; Beldade, P. Seasonal plasticity in anti-predatory strategies: Matching of color and color preference for effective crypsis. Evol. Lett. 2019, 3, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Monteiro, A.F.; Brakefield, P.M.; French, V. The Evolutionary Genetics and Developmental Basis of Wing Pattern Variation in the Butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Evolution 1994, 48, 1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Beldade, P.; Koops, K.; Brakefield, P.M. Modularity, individuality, and evo-devo in butterfly wings. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 14262–14267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Beldade, P.; Koops, K.; Brakefield, P.M. Developmental constraints versus flexibility in morphological evolution. Nature 2002, 416, 844–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Saenko, S.; French, V.; Brakefield, P.M.; Beldade, P. Conserved developmental processes and the formation of evolutionary novelties: Examples from butterfly wings. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 1549–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Beldade, P.; Saenko, S.V.; Pul, N.; Long, A.D. A Gene-Based Linkage Map for Bicyclus anynana Butterflies Allows for a Comprehensive Analysis of Synteny with the Lepidopteran Reference Genome. PLoS Genet. 2009, 5, e1000366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. A Mateus, A.R.; Marques-Pita, M.; Oostra, V.; Lafuente, E.; Brakefield, P.M.; Zwaan, B.J.; Beldade, P. Adaptive developmental plasticity: Compartmentalized responses to environmental cues and to corresponding internal signals provide phenotypic flexibility. BMC Biol. 2014, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Monteiro, A.; Tong, X.; Bear, A.; Liew, S.F.; Bhardwaj, S.; Wasik, B.R.; Dinwiddie, A.; Bastianelli, C.; Cheong, W.F.; Wenk, M.R.; et al. Differential Expression of Ecdysone Receptor Leads to Variation in Phenotypic Plasticity across Serial Homologs. PLoS Genet. 2015, 11, e1005529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Wijngaarden, P.J.; Brakefield, P.M. The genetic basis of eyespot size in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana: An analysis of line crosses. Heredity 2000, 85, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Saenko, S.V.; A Jerónimo, M.; Beldade, P. Genetic basis of stage-specific melanism: A putative role for a cysteine sulfinic acid decarboxylase in insect pigmentation. Heredity 2012, 108, 594–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Saenko, S.V.; Brakefield, P.M.; Beldade, P. Single locus affects embryonic segment polarity and multiple aspects of an adult evolutionary novelty. BMC Biol. 2010, 8, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Schindelin, J.; Arganda-Carreras, I.; Frise, E.; Kaynig, V.; Longair, M.; Pietzsch, T.; Preibisch, S.; Rueden, C.; Saalfeld, S.; Schmid, B.; et al. Fiji: An open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 676–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Beldade, P.; Brakefield, P.M. Concerted evolution and developmental integration in modular butterfly wing patterns. Evol. Dev. 2003, 5, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rodrigues, Y.K.; Bergen, E.; Alves, F.; Duneau, D.; Beldade, P. Additive and non-additive effects of day and night temperatures on thermally plastic traits in a model for adaptive seasonal plasticity. Evolution 2021, 75, 1805–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Brakefield, P.M.; Kesbeke, F.; Koch, P.B. The Regulation of Phenotypic Plasticity of Eyespots in the Butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Am. Nat. 1998, 152, 853–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Wijngaarden, P.J.; Brakefield, P.M. Lack of response to artificial selection on the slope of reaction norms for seasonal polyphenism in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Heredity 2001, 87, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. R Development Core Team. R—A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Development Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jolliffe, I.T. Principal Component Analysis, 2nd ed.; Springer Series in Statistics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-0-38-795442-4. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lê, S.; Josse, J.; Husson, F. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2008, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Josse, J.; Husson, F. missMDA: A Package for Handling Missing Values in Multivariate Data Analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2016, 70, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. De Moed, G.H.; De Jong, G.; Scharloo, W. The phenotypic plasticity of wing size in Drosophila melanogaster: The cellular basis of its genetic variation. Heredity 1997, 79, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mensch, J.; Lavagnino, N.; Carreira, V.P.; Massaldi, A.; Hasson, E.; Fanara, J.J. Identifying candidate genes affecting developmental time in Drosophila melanogaster: Pervasive pleiotropy and gene-by-environment interaction. BMC Dev. Biol. 2008, 8, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Kingsolver, J.G.; Ragland, G.J.; Shlichta, J.G. Quantitative Genetics of Continuous Reaction Norms: Thermal Sensitivity of Caterpillar Growth Rates. Evolution 2004, 58, 1521–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Knies, J.L.; Izem, R.; Supler, K.L.; Kingsolver, J.G.; Burch, C.L. The Genetic Basis of Thermal Reaction Norm Evolution in Lab and Natural Phage Populations. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gutteling, E.W.; Riksen, J.A.G.; Bakker, J.; E Kammenga, J. Mapping phenotypic plasticity and genotype–environment interactions affecting life-history traits in Caenorhabditis elegans. Heredity 2006, 98, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. A Hutchings, J.; Swain, D.P.; Rowe, S.; Eddington, J.D.; Puvanendran, V.; A Brown, J. Genetic variation in life-history reaction norms in a marine fish. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2007, 274, 1693–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Balasubramanian, S.; Sureshkumar, S.; Lempe, J.; Weigel, D. Potent Induction of Arabidopsis thaliana Flowering by Elevated Growth Temperature. PLoS Genet. 2006, 2, e106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Culumber, Z.W.; Schumer, M.; Monks, S.; Tobler, M. Environmental heterogeneity generates opposite gene-by-environment interactions for two fitness-related traits within a population: Brief Communication. Evolution 2015, 69, 541–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Czarnoleski, M.; Kramarz, P.; Małek, D.; Drobniak, S.M. Genetic components in a thermal developmental plasticity of the beetle Tribolium castaneum. J. Therm. Biol. 2017, 68, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gibert, J.-M.; Mouchel-Vielh, E.; De Castro, S.; Peronnet, F. Phenotypic Plasticity through Transcriptional Regulation of the Evolutionary Hotspot Gene tan in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 2016, 12, e1006218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. De Castro, S.; Peronnet, F.; Gilles, J.-F.; Mouchel-Vielh, E.; Gibert, J.-M. bric à brac (bab), a central player in the gene regulatory network that mediates thermal plasticity of pigmentation in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 2018, 14, e1007573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Endler, L.; Gibert, J.-M.; Nolte, V.; Schlötterer, C. Pleiotropic effects of regulatory variation in tan result in correlation of two pigmentation traits in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Ecol. 2018, 27, 3207–3218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Gibert, J.-M.; Mouchel-Vielh, E.; Peronnet, F. Modulation of yellow expression contributes to thermal plasticity of female abdominal pigmentation in Drosophila melanogaster. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, srep43370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Monteiro, A.; Brakefield, P.M.; French, V. Butterfly Eyespots: The Genetics and Development of the Color Rings. Evolution 1997, 51, 1207–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. E Allen, C.; Beldade, P.; Zwaan, B.J.; Brakefield, P.M. Differences in the selection response of serially repeated color pattern characters: Standing variation, development, and evolution. BMC Evol. Biol. 2008, 8, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Oostra, V.; de Jong, M.; Invergo, B.; Kesbeke, F.; Wende, F.; Brakefield, P.M.; Zwaan, B. Translating environmental gradients into discontinuous reaction norms via hormone signalling in a polyphenic butterfly. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2010, 278, 789–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. David, J.R.; Capy, P.; Gauthier, J.-P. Abdominal pigmentation and growth temperature in Drosophila melanogaster: Similarities and differences in the norms of reaction of successive segments. J. Evol. Biol. 1990, 3, 429–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lafuente, E.; Alves, F.; King, J.G.; Peralta, C.M.; Beldade, P. Many ways to make darker flies: Intra- and interspecific variation in Drosophila body pigmentation components. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 8136–8155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Oostra, V.; Mateus, A.R.A.; van der Burg, K.R.L.; Piessens, T.; van Eijk, M.; Brakefield, P.M.; Beldade, P.; Zwaan, B.J. Ecdysteroid Hormones Link the Juvenile Environment to Alternative Adult Life Histories in a Seasonal Insect. Am. Nat. 2014, 184, E79–E92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. David, J.R.; Gibert, P.; Moreteau, B. Evolution of Reaction Norms. In Phenotypic Plasticity: Functional and Conceptual Approaches; DeWitt, T.J., Scheiner, S.M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 50–63. [Google Scholar]
  77. Gibert, P.; Capy, P.; Imasheva, A.; Moreteau, B.; Morin, J.; Pétavy, G.; David, J. Comparative analysis of morphological traits among Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans: Genetic variability, clines and phenotypic plasticity. Genetica 2004, 120, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tang, H.Y.; Smith-Caldas, M.S.B.; Driscoll, M.V.; Salhadar, S.; Shingleton, A. FOXO Regulates Organ-Specific Phenotypic Plasticity In Drosophila. PLoS Genet. 2011, 7, e1002373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mirth, C.K.; Shingleton, A.W. Integrating Body and Organ Size in Drosophila: Recent Advances and Outstanding Problems. Front. Endocrinol. 2012, 3, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Kijimoto, T.; Snell-Rood, E.C.; Pespeni, M.H.; Rocha, G.; Kafadar, K.; Moczek, A.P. The nutritionally responsive transcriptome of the polyphenic beetle Onthophagus taurus and the importance of sexual dimorphism and body region. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 2014, 281, 20142084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Gotoh, H.; Hust, J.A.; Miura, T.; Niimi, T.; Emlen, D.J.; Lavine, L.C. The Fat/Hippo signaling pathway links within-disc morphogen patterning to whole-animal signals during phenotypically plastic growth in insects: Fat/Hippo Signaling In Nu-trition-Sensitive Growth. Dev. Dyn. 2015, 244, 1039–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Koyama, T.; A Rodrigues, M.; Athanasiadis, A.; Shingleton, A.W.; Mirth, C.K. Nutritional Control of Body Size through FoxO-Ultraspiracle Mediated Ecdysone Biosynthesis. eLife 2014, 3, e03091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Insects 13 01000 g001 550
Figure 1. Wing traits measured in adult butterflies from four genotypes. (a) The photos represent the typical phenotype of ventral wing surfaces of Bicyclus anynana females from four genetic stocks (WT, Fr, BE, and Choc) reared at 19 °C (top panel) or 27 °C (bottom panel). For each individual, we obtained measurements of the areas of the black and golden rings of two eyespots on the forewing (eA and eP, for the anterior and posterior eyespots, respectively) and two on the hindwing (e2 and e5, for the second and fifth eyespots, respectively), as well as forewing and hindwing areas. (b) The diagram on top displays the symbols used to represent the different traits we measured. For each of the two eyespots measured on each wing, the more anterior is represented by a circle on the top of the wing, and the more posterior by a circle on the bottom of the wing. The color of the circles at the center of each icon corresponds to either the black or golden rings.
Figure 1. Wing traits measured in adult butterflies from four genotypes. (a) The photos represent the typical phenotype of ventral wing surfaces of Bicyclus anynana females from four genetic stocks (WT, Fr, BE, and Choc) reared at 19 °C (top panel) or 27 °C (bottom panel). For each individual, we obtained measurements of the areas of the black and golden rings of two eyespots on the forewing (eA and eP, for the anterior and posterior eyespots, respectively) and two on the hindwing (e2 and e5, for the second and fifth eyespots, respectively), as well as forewing and hindwing areas. (b) The diagram on top displays the symbols used to represent the different traits we measured. For each of the two eyespots measured on each wing, the more anterior is represented by a circle on the top of the wing, and the more posterior by a circle on the bottom of the wing. The color of the circles at the center of each icon corresponds to either the black or golden rings.
Insects 13 01000 g001
Insects 13 01000 g002 550
Figure 2. Variation in eyespot rings in relation to developmental temperature and genotype. Areas of the black and golden rings (different colors) of each of the four target eyespots (symbols to the left; see Figure 1) in male (left) and female (right) butterflies from each of the four target genotypes (names to the right) developed at different temperatures (19, 23, or 27 °C). Values correspond to the mean and standard deviation of eyespot area relative to the area of the corresponding wing. We tested for the effect of temperature (T) and genotype (G) on ring area, using wing area as a covariate (see Section 2). Statistical significance of effects of G, T, and GxT for each ring area (different colors) is represented with ns for non-significant (p > 0.05), * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01, and *** for p < 0.001. Raw data in supplementary File S1 and details of the statistical analysis in supplementary File S2.
Figure 2. Variation in eyespot rings in relation to developmental temperature and genotype. Areas of the black and golden rings (different colors) of each of the four target eyespots (symbols to the left; see Figure 1) in male (left) and female (right) butterflies from each of the four target genotypes (names to the right) developed at different temperatures (19, 23, or 27 °C). Values correspond to the mean and standard deviation of eyespot area relative to the area of the corresponding wing. We tested for the effect of temperature (T) and genotype (G) on ring area, using wing area as a covariate (see Section 2). Statistical significance of effects of G, T, and GxT for each ring area (different colors) is represented with ns for non-significant (p > 0.05), * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01, and *** for p < 0.001. Raw data in supplementary File S1 and details of the statistical analysis in supplementary File S2.
Insects 13 01000 g002
Insects 13 01000 g003 550
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) of eyespot ring area for different temperatures and genotypes. (a) PCA loadings for each of the eight pigmentation traits (two color rings for each of four target eyespots; symbols on the left), reflecting their contribution to defining the first four principal components identified (termed Dim 1–4; with eigenvalues and % variation explained). The analysis was performed separately for the female and male datasets. (b) Mean values along Dim 1 and Dim 2 (with bars representing standard deviation) as a function of developmental temperature (19, 23, or 27°C) for each of the four genotypes (WT, Fr, BE, and Choc in different line styles; legend in bottom right corner) in females (red) and males (blue). We tested for the effect of temperature (T) and genotype (G) on each Dim (see Section 2). Statistical significance of effects of G, T, and GxT for each Dim is represented with ns for non-significant (p > 0.05), * for p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. Further details in supplementary File S3.
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCA) of eyespot ring area for different temperatures and genotypes. (a) PCA loadings for each of the eight pigmentation traits (two color rings for each of four target eyespots; symbols on the left), reflecting their contribution to defining the first four principal components identified (termed Dim 1–4; with eigenvalues and % variation explained). The analysis was performed separately for the female and male datasets. (b) Mean values along Dim 1 and Dim 2 (with bars representing standard deviation) as a function of developmental temperature (19, 23, or 27°C) for each of the four genotypes (WT, Fr, BE, and Choc in different line styles; legend in bottom right corner) in females (red) and males (blue). We tested for the effect of temperature (T) and genotype (G) on each Dim (see Section 2). Statistical significance of effects of G, T, and GxT for each Dim is represented with ns for non-significant (p > 0.05), * for p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. Further details in supplementary File S3.
Insects 13 01000 g003
Insects 13 01000 g004 550
Figure 4. Thermal reaction norms for eyespot ring area for butterflies differing at specific pigmentation loci. Means and standard deviations for eyespot ring areas (symbols to the right) relative to the corresponding wing areas as a function of developmental temperatures in females from different genetic lines (a), and for allelic variants for the BE (b) and Fr (c) lines. For BE and Fr, we compare sibling “mutant” (heterozygous at the respective locus) and “wild type” (homozygous for the wild-type allele, represented by WT and solid line in the figures). We tested for the effect of temperature (T) and genotype (G) on eyespot ring area using wing area as a covariate (see Section 2). Statistical significance for GxT interactions displayed as: ns (non-significant) p > 0.05, * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. Reaction norms for males in File S4, details of statistical analysis in Files S2 (for (a)) and S4 (for (b,c)), raw data in File S1.
Figure 4. Thermal reaction norms for eyespot ring area for butterflies differing at specific pigmentation loci. Means and standard deviations for eyespot ring areas (symbols to the right) relative to the corresponding wing areas as a function of developmental temperatures in females from different genetic lines (a), and for allelic variants for the BE (b) and Fr (c) lines. For BE and Fr, we compare sibling “mutant” (heterozygous at the respective locus) and “wild type” (homozygous for the wild-type allele, represented by WT and solid line in the figures). We tested for the effect of temperature (T) and genotype (G) on eyespot ring area using wing area as a covariate (see Section 2). Statistical significance for GxT interactions displayed as: ns (non-significant) p > 0.05, * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. Reaction norms for males in File S4, details of statistical analysis in Files S2 (for (a)) and S4 (for (b,c)), raw data in File S1.
Insects 13 01000 g004
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mateus, A.R.A.; Beldade, P. Developmental Plasticity in Butterfly Eyespot Mutants: Variation in Thermal Reaction Norms across Genotypes and Pigmentation Traits. Insects 2022, 13, 1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111000

AMA Style

Mateus ARA, Beldade P. Developmental Plasticity in Butterfly Eyespot Mutants: Variation in Thermal Reaction Norms across Genotypes and Pigmentation Traits. Insects. 2022; 13(11):1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111000

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mateus, Ana Rita Amaro, and Patrícia Beldade. 2022. "Developmental Plasticity in Butterfly Eyespot Mutants: Variation in Thermal Reaction Norms across Genotypes and Pigmentation Traits" Insects 13, no. 11: 1000. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111000

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop