Search for: All records

Aphids present a fascinating example of phenotypic plasticity, in which a single genotype can produce dramatically different winged and wingless phenotypes that are specialized for dispersal versus reproduction, respectively. Recent work has examined many aspects of this plasticity, including its evolution, molecular control mechanisms, and genetic variation underlying the trait. In particular, exciting discoveries have been made about the signaling pathways that are responsible for controlling the production of winged versus wingless morphs, including ecdysone, dopamine, and insulin signaling, and about how specific genes such as REPTOR2 and vestigial are regulated to control winglessness. Future work will likely focus on the role of epigenetic mechanisms, as well as developing transgenic tools for more thoroughly dissecting the role of candidate plasticity-related genes. 

Many organisms exhibit phenotypic plasticity, in which developmental processes result in different phenotypes depending on their environmental context. Here we focus on the molecular mechanisms underlying that environmental response. Pea aphids ( Acyrthosiphon pisum ) exhibit a wing dimorphism, in which pea aphid mothers produce winged or wingless daughters when exposed to a crowded or low-density environment, respectively. We investigated the role of dopamine in mediating this wing plasticity, motivated by a previous study that found higher dopamine titres in wingless- versus winged-producing aphid mothers. In this study, we found that manipulating dopamine levels in aphid mothers affected the numbers of winged offspring they produced. Specifically, asexual female adults injected with a dopamine agonist produced a lower percentage of winged offspring, while asexual females injected with a dopamine antagonist produced a higher percentage of winged offspring, matching expectations based on the titre difference. We also found that genes involved in dopamine synthesis, degradation and signalling were not differentially expressed between wingless- and winged-producing aphids. This result indicates that titre regulation possibly happens in a non-transcriptional manner or that sampling of additional timepoints or tissues is necessary. Overall, our work emphasizes that dopamine is an important component of how organisms process information about their environments. 

Epigenetic mechanisms modulate gene expression levels during development, shaping how a single genome produces a diversity of phenotypes. Here, we begin to explore the epigenetic regulation of sexual dimorphism in pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum) by focusing on microRNAs. Previous analyses of microRNAs in aphids have focused solely on females, so we performed deep sequencing of a sample containing early-stage males. We used this sample, plus samples from Genbank, to find 207 novel pea aphid microRNA coding loci. We localized microRNA loci to a chromosome-level assembly of the pea aphid genome and found that those on the X chromosome have lower overall expression compared to those on autosomes. We then identified a set of 19 putative male-biased microRNAs and found them enriched on the X chromosome. Finally, we performed protein-coding RNA-Seq of first instar female and male pea aphids to identify genes with lower expression in males. 10 of these genes were predicted targets of the 19 male-biased microRNAs. Our study provides the most complete set of microRNAs in the pea aphid to date and serves as foundational work for future studies on the epigenetic control of sexual dimorphism. 

A key focus of evolutionary developmental biology is on how phenotypic diversity is generated. In particular, both plasticity and developmental instability contribute to phenotypic variation among genetically identical individuals, but the interactions between the two phenomena and their general fitness impacts are unclear. We discovered a striking example of asymmetry in pea aphids: the presence of wings on one side and the complete or partial absence of wings on the opposite side. We used this asymmetric phenotype to study the connection between plasticity, developmental instability and fitness. We found that this asymmetric wing development (i) occurred equally on both sides and thus is a developmental instability; (ii) is present in some genetically unique lines but not others, and thus has a genetic basis; and (iii) has intermediate levels of fecundity, and thus does not necessarily have negative fitness consequences. We conclude that this dramatic asymmetry may arise from incomplete switching between developmental targets, linking plasticity and developmental instability. We suspect that what we have observed may be a more widespread phenomenon, occurring across species that routinely produce distinct, alternative phenotypes.