The calmodulin pathway and evolution of elongated beak morphology in Darwin's finches
Abstract
A classic textbook example of adaptive radiation under natural selection is the evolution of 14 closely related species of Darwin's finches (Fringillidae, Passeriformes), whose primary diversity lies in the size and shape of their beaks. Thus, ground finches have deep and wide beaks, cactus finches have long and pointed beaks (low depth and narrower width), and warbler finches have slender and pointed beaks, reflecting differences in their respective diets. Previous work has shown that even small differences in any of the three major dimensions (depth, width and length) of the beak have major consequences for the overall fitness of the birds. Recently we used a candidate gene approach to explain one pathway involved in Darwin's finch beak morphogenesis. However, this type of analysis is limited to molecules with a known association with craniofacial and/or skeletogenic development. Here we use a less constrained, complementary DNA microarray analysis of the transcripts expressed in the beak primordia to find previously unknown genes and pathways whose expression correlates with specific beak morphologies. We show that calmodulin (CaM), a molecule involved in mediating Ca2+ signalling, is expressed at higher levels in the long and pointed beaks of cactus finches than in more robust beak types of other species. We validated this observation with in situ hybridizations. When this upregulation of the CaM-dependent pathway is artificially replicated in the chick frontonasal prominence, it causes an elongation of the upper beak, recapitulating the beak morphology of the cactus finches. Our results indicate that local upregulation of the CaM-dependent pathway is likely to have been a component of the evolution of Darwin's finch species with elongated beak morphology and provide a mechanistic explanation for the independence of beak evolution along different axes. More generally, our results implicate the CaM-dependent pathway in the developmental regulation of craniofacial skeletal structures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Several cases of dramatic morphological changes that occurred very recently are due to alteration in regulation of single genes encoding signaling ligands or transcription factors.
“There are now several justly famous cases where dramatic morphological changes that have occurred very recently have been shown to be due to alteration in regulation of single genes, encoding either signaling ligands (Abzhanov et al. 2006) or transcription factors (Cretekos et al. 2008; Chan et al. 2009; Rebeiz et al. 2009).”
From An integrated view of precambrian eumetazoan evolution (2009) · cites this paper as Abzhanov et al. 2006
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Clapham, D. E. (2007) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.028 · Cited by 4,175 · see citing works
Adaptive radiation, nonadaptive radiation, ecological speciation and nonecological speciation
Rundell, R. J., & Price, T. D. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.007 · Cited by 631 · see citing works
Minoux, M., & Rijli, F. M. (2010) · Development · doi:10.1242/dev.040048 · Cited by 507 · see citing works
The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory networks
Erwin, D. H., & Davidson, E. H. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2499 · Cited by 454 · see citing works
Evolution of Gene Regulatory Networks Controlling Body Plan Development
Peter, I. S., & Davidson, E. H. (2011) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.017 · Cited by 417 · see citing works
The shapes of bird beaks are highly controlled by nondietary factors
Bright, J. A., Marugán-Lobón, J., Cobb, S. N., & Rayfield, E. J. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1602683113 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
Ruiz-Núñez, B., Pruimboom, L., Dijck-Brouwer, D. A. J., & Muskiet, F. A. J. (2013) · The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.jnutbio.2013.02.009 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Two developmental modules establish 3D beak-shape variation in Darwin's finches
Mallarino, R., Grant, P. R., Grant, B. R., Herrel, A., Kuo, W. P., & Abzhanov, A. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1011480108 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Self-citationFields, C., & Levin, M. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24060819 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Rauhut, O. W. M., Foth, C., & Tischlinger, H. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.4191 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
“If so, the variation in the dentition of Archaeopteryx might represent to some degree a Jurassic equivalent to the famous Darwin Finches, in which species show a great variety in the shape of their beaks, correlating with respective diet spectra (Sato et al., 2001; Abzhanov et al., 2006; Lamichhaney et al., 2015).”
BackgroundCommunity-wide genome sequencing reveals 30 years of Darwin’s finch evolution
Enbody, E. D., Sendell-Price, A. T., Sprehn, C. G., Rubin, C.-J., Visscher, P. M., Grant, B. R., Grant, P. R., & Andersson, L. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adf6218 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Self-citationAn integrated view of precambrian eumetazoan evolution
Davidson, E. H., & Erwin, D. H. (2009) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.2009.74.042 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Kuipers, R. S., Joordens, J. C. A., & Muskiet, F. A. J. (2012) · Nutrition Research Reviews · doi:10.1017/s0954422412000017 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Khoueiry, P., Girardot, C., Ciglar, L., Peng, P.-C., Gustafson, E. H., Sinha, S., & Furlong, E. E. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.28440 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Novelties That Change Carrying Capacity
Erwin, D. H. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution · doi:10.1002/jez.b.21429 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- Abzhanov, A., Kuo, W. P., Hartmann, C., Grant, B. R., Grant, P. R., & Tabin, C. J.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Research Institute of Molecular Pathology (AT)
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tabin, Clifford J.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 442
- Issue
- 7102
- Pages
- 563-567
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2074067714
- Cited by
- 636
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 58.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Keywords
- CHES, beak morphology, calmodulin, calcium signaling, BMP4, cactus finch, adaptive radiation, craniofacial development, gene expression, natural selection, Darwin's finches, chick embryo, in situ hybridization
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Beak, Calmodulin, Chick Embryo, Biological Evolution, Gene Expression Regulation, Models, Biological, Molecular Sequence Data, Signal Transduction, Cluster Analysis, Bone Morphogenetic Proteins, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Finches
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review