Molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying the evolution of form and function in the amniote jaw.

The amniote jaw complex is a remarkable amalgamation of derivatives from distinct embryonic cell lineages. During development, the cells in these lineages experience concerted movements, migrations, and signaling interactions that take them from their initial origins to their final destinations and imbue their derivatives with aspects of form including their axial orientation, anatomical identity, size, and shape. Perturbations along the way can produce defects and disease, but also generate the variation necessary for jaw evolution and adaptation. We focus on molecular and cellular mechanisms that regulate form in the amniote jaw complex, and that enable structural and functional integration. Special emphasis is placed on the role of cranial neural crest mesenchyme (NCM) during the species-specific patterning of bone, cartilage, tendon, muscle, and other jaw tissues. We also address the effects of biomechanical forces during jaw development and discuss ways in which certain molecular and cellular responses add adaptive and evolutionary plasticity to jaw morphology. Overall, we highlight how variation in molecular and cellular programs can promote the phenomenal diversity and functional morphology achieved during amniote jaw evolution or lead to the range of jaw defects and disease that affect the human condition

The phylogenetic origin and evolution of acellular bone in teleost fishes: insights into osteocyte function in bone metabolism

Vertebrate bone is composed of three main cell types: osteoblasts, osteoclasts and osteocytes, the latter being by far the most numerous. Osteocytes are thought to play a fundamental role in bone physiology and homeostasis, however they are entirely absent in most extant species of teleosts, a group that comprises the vast majority of bony ‘fishes’, and approximately half of vertebrates. Understanding how this acellular (anosteocytic) bone appeared and was maintained in such an important vertebrate group has important implications for our understanding of the function and evolution of osteocytes. Nevertheless, although it is clear that cellular bone is ancestral for teleosts, it has not been clear in which specific subgroup the osteocytes were lost. This review aims to clarify the phylogenetic distribution of cellular and acellular bone in teleosts, to identify its precise origin, reversals to cellularity, and their implications. We surveyed the bone type for more than 600 fossil and extant ray‐finned fish species and optimised the results on recent large‐scale molecular phylogenetic trees, estimating ancestral states. We find that acellular bone is a probable synapomorphy of Euteleostei, a group uniting approximately two‐thirds of teleost species. We also confirm homoplasy in these traits: acellular bone occurs in some non‐euteleosts (although rarely), and cellular bone was reacquired several times independently within euteleosts, in salmons and relatives, tunas and the opah (Lampris sp.). The occurrence of peculiar ecological (e.g. anadromous migration) and physiological (e.g. red‐muscle endothermy) strategies in these lineages might explain the reacquisition of osteocytes. Our review supports that the main contribution of osteocytes in teleost bone is to mineral homeostasis (via osteocytic osteolysis) and not to strain detection or bone remodelling, helping to clarify their role in bone physiology

First shark from the late Devonian (Frasnian) gogo formation, Western Australia sheds new light on the development of tessellated calcified cartilage

Background: Living gnathostomes (jawed vertebrates) comprise two divisions, Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes, including euchondrichthyans with prismatic calcified cartilage, and extinct stem chondrichthyans) and Osteichthyes (bony fishes including tetrapods). Most of the early chondrichthyan (‘shark’) record is based upon isolated teeth, spines, and scales, with the oldest articulated sharks that exhibit major diagnostic characters of the group—prismatic calcified cartilage and pelvic claspers in males—being from the latest Devonian, c. 360 Mya. This paucity of information about early chondrichthyan anatomy is mainly due to their lack of endoskeletal bone and consequent low preservation potential. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here we present new data from the first well-preserved chondrichthyan fossil from the early Late Devonian (ca. 380–384 Mya) Gogo Formation Lägerstatte of Western Australia. The specimen is the first Devonian shark body fossil to be acid-prepared, revealing the endoskeletal elements as three-dimensional undistorted units: Meckel’s cartilages, nasal, ceratohyal, basibranchial and possible epibranchial cartilages, plus left and right scapulocoracoids, as well as teeth and scales. This unique specimen is assigned to Gogoselachus lynnbeazleyae n. gen. n. sp.Conclusions/Significance: The Meckel’s cartilages show a jaw articulation surface dominated by an expansive cotylus, and a small mandibular knob, an unusual condition for chondrichthyans. The scapulocoracoid of the new specimen shows evidence of two pectoral fin basal articulation facets, differing from the standard condition for early gnathostomes which have either one or three articulations. The tooth structure is intermediate between the ‘primitive’ ctenacanthiform and symmoriiform condition, and more derived forms with a euselachian-type base. Of special interest is the highly distinctive type of calcified cartilage forming the endoskeleton, comprising multiple layers of nonprismatic subpolygonal tesserae separated by a cellular matrix, interpreted as a transitional step toward the tessellated prismatic calcified cartilage that is recognized as the main diagnostic character of the chondrichthyans

A critical appraisal of appendage disparity and homology in fishes

Fishes are both extremely diverse and morphologically disparate. Part of this disparity can be observed in the numerous possible fin configurations that may differ in terms of the number of fins as well as fin shapes, sizes and relative positions on the body. Here, we thoroughly review the major patterns of disparity in fin configurations for each major group of fishes and discuss how median and paired fin homologies have been interpreted over time. When taking into account the entire span of fish diversity, including both extant and fossil taxa, the disparity in fin morphologies greatly complicates inferring homologies for individual fins. Given the phylogenetic scope of this review, structural and topological criteria appear to be the most useful indicators of fin identity. We further suggest that it may be advantageous to consider some of these fin homologies as nested within the larger framework of homologous fin‐forming morphogenetic fields. We also discuss scenarios of appendage evolution and suggest that modularity may have played a key role in appendage disparification. Fin modules re‐expressed within the boundaries of fin‐forming fields could explain how some fins may have evolved numerous times independently in separate lineages (e.g., adipose fin), or how new fins may have evolved over time (e.g., anterior and posterior dorsal fins, pectoral and pelvic fins). We favour an evolutionary scenario whereby median appendages appeared from a unique field of competence first positioned throughout the dorsal and ventral midlines, which was then redeployed laterally leading to paired appendages.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151971/1/faf12402_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151971/2/faf12402.pd