Asymmetry in dentition and shape of pharyngeal arches in the clonal fish Chrosomus eos-neogaeus: Phenotypic plasticity and developmental instability

Christelle Leung; Kevin Karl Duclos; Thomas Grünbaum; Richard Cloutier; Bernard Angers

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174235

Abstract

The effect of the environment may result in different developmental outcomes. Extrinsic signals can modify developmental pathways and result in alternative phenotypes (phenotypic plasticity). The environment can also be interpreted as a stressor and increase developmental instability (developmental noise). Directional and fluctuating asymmetry provide a conceptual background to discriminate between these results. This study aims at assessing whether variation in dentition and shape of pharyngeal arches of the clonal fish Chrosomus eos-neogaeus results from developmental instability or environmentally induced changes. A total of 262 specimens of the Chrosomus eos-neogaeus complex from 12 natural sites were analysed. X-ray microcomputed tomography (X-ray micro-CT) was used to visualize the pharyngeal arches in situ with high resolution. Variation in the number of pharyngeal teeth is high in hybrids in contrast to the relative stability observed in both parental species. The basal dental formula is symmetric while the most frequent alternative dental formula is asymmetric. Within one lineage, large variation in the proportion of individuals bearing basal or alternative dental formulae was observed among sites in the absence of genetic difference. Both dentition and arch shape of this hybrid lineage were explained significantly by environmental differences. Only individuals bearing asymmetric dental formula displayed fluctuating asymmetry as well as directional left-right asymmetry for the arches. The hybrids appeared sensitive to environmental signals and intraspecific variation on pharyngeal teeth was not random but reflects phenotypic plasticity. Altogether, these results support the influence of the environment as a trigger for an alternative developmental pathway resulting in left-right asymmetry in dentition and shape of pharyngeal arches.

Citation: Leung C, Duclos KK, Grünbaum T, Cloutier R, Angers B (2017) Asymmetry in dentition and shape of pharyngeal arches in the clonal fish Chrosomus eos-neogaeus: Phenotypic plasticity and developmental instability. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0174235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235

Editor: Michael Schubert, Laboratoire de Biologie du Développement de Villefranche-sur-Mer, FRANCE

Received: September 29, 2016; Accepted: March 6, 2017; Published: April 5, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Leung et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Discovery grant #238612 (RC) and #238600 (BA), http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/Grants-Subs/DGIGP-PSIGP_eng.asp. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The phenotype of an organism is the product of developmental processes and depends on the interactions among genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors. The survival of an individual is intimately dependent on the production of a consistent phenotype according to a specified environmental condition, a capacity defined as developmental stability [1, 2]. Developmental stability is therefore a fundamental characteristic of the development of a given genotype. However, organisms are not impervious to random perturbations and developmental instability refers to the deviation from the expected phenotype within a given environment [3, 4]. Measuring developmental instability represents a proximate way to assess the capacity of organisms to deal with different environments.

While developmental instability can be estimated by measuring the deviation between an observed and expected stable phenotype, this may be a challenging exercise when the optimal or expected phenotype is unknown, which is frequently the case in natural populations [1]. In organisms with bilateral symmetry, the use of bilateral homologous structures across the left-right axis of symmetry offers an accurate way to estimate developmental instability as the development of such structures is expected to be influenced by the same environment and genotype.

However, the influence of the environment during development may result in different outcomes. The environment can be interpreted as a stressor and increase developmental instability (developmental noise [2, 5]), while it may also modify developmental pathways and result in alternative phenotypes (phenotypic plasticity [6]). Left-right asymmetry (L-R asymmetry), the deviation from one side to the other, provides a useful method to discriminate between developmental instability (developmental noise) and environmental influences (phenotypic plasticity) on morphological traits.

Random deviation from L-R symmetry within a given group refers to fluctuating asymmetry (FA) and is often associated to developmental instability [7]. Indeed, FA is seemingly related to accidents during development due to epimutations or abnormalities in the process of ontogenesis [8, 9]. FA is present, at a low degree, in normal development [10–12] but can be increased when an individual is under genetic and/or environmental stresses [13].

On the other hand, directional asymmetry (DA) is a propensity for the trait on one side to develop differently than the other side. Such systematic differences between sides are under precise genetic control and could therefore not be the result of developmental instability. DA results from the particular embryonic development of a given species [14] or a side-specific response to environmental conditions [7]. Consistent phenotypic changes in response to a given environmental condition are referred to as phenotypic plasticity and this process is mediated by epigenetics-environment interactions [15–17].

Fish teeth display a remarkable disparity in size, shape, number, as well as types and structures of attachment to tooth bearing arches or structures [18, 19]. Freshwater cypriniform fishes have lost all dentition on the mandibular arch, while the seventh pharyngeal arch (the fifth branchial arch) has been modified into a tooth bearing pharyngeal jaw apparatus [20]. Dental formulae, referring to the number and arrangement of teeth on the pharyngeal arch, are important taxonomic characters for cyprinid fishes [21]. This character is generally stable within a given species and alternative dental formulae have been traditionally viewed as a consequence of developmental accidents during ontogeny [22, 23].

Fishes typically exhibit bilateral symmetry although internal organs, such as the brain, heart, pancreas and gut, show L-R asymmetry [24]. Several factors are required for proper asymmetric patterning of the vertebrate embryo. In zebrafish, asymmetric development of the brain, heart and gut include monociliated cells within Kupffer’s vesicle, and expression of fibroblast growth factors, retinoic acid, and wnt11 genes [25, 26]. These factors also appear to be involved in asymmetric craniofacial development and lateralisation of the pharyngeal skeleton in zebrafish [26]. Shape asymmetry of pharyngeal arches in the zebrafish results most frequently in modifications on the R-side [26]. This trend is frequently observed in dental formulae. When asymmetry occur in teeth number, the missing tooth is always on the R-side leading to a higher tooth number on the L-side [27, 28].

This study aims at assessing whether variation of the dentition and the shape of pharyngeal arches result from developmental instability or phenotypic plasticity. We determined the variation in dental formula as well as the shape of pharyngeal arch using X-ray microcomputed tomography (micro-CT scan). A growing body of research has shown the relevance of micro-CT scan and 3D imaging technology to ecological and evolutionary researches [29–31]. This technology has become a cornerstone of the study of tooth morphology and development [32] because it allows a greater precision and incurs less physical loss compared to traditional methods [29]. Pharyngeal arches measure a few millimeters and teeth are very fragile, specimens were thus micro-CT scanned in order to observe tooth positioning and shape variation in situ. We estimate FA and DA based on the geometric shape of pharyngeal arches to discriminate whether variation was linked to developmental instability or rather phenotypic plasticity.

This study focuses on the clonal hybrid fish Chrosomus eos-neogaeus (Cyprinidae; Teleostei). The absence of genetic variation among individuals makes this asexual fish an ideal system to discriminate the effect of environmentally-induced from those associated to stochastic processes [33]. Clonal fish Chrosomus eos-neogaeus resulted from hybridization between northern redbelly dace, Chrosomus eos, and finescale dace, Chrosomus neogaeus. These all-female hybrids reproduce asexually by gynogenesis; there is neither chromosome segregation nor recombination, leading to genetically identical offspring [33–38]. Therefore, a given genotype can be represented by multiple individuals found in heterogeneous environmental conditions [33, 34]. Moreover, multiple hybridization events led to multiple clonal lineages in distinct sites marked by contrasting environmental conditions [38].

Previous studies reported that combination of different genomes in hybrids may result in higher developmental instability than observed in parental species [39, 40]. One can therefore expect a higher FA in hybrids than in parental species as well as a similar level of variation in dental formulae among sites. On the other hand, if hybrids are more sensitive to a given environmental signal or respond to a lower threshold than parental species, FA is expected to be similar in hybrids and parental species while both shape and dental formula are expected to vary according to site. In addition, DA will reflect phenotypic plasticity when coupled to given phenotype or environmental conditions.

Material and methods

Specimen sampling and identification

This research was performed under institutional animal care guidelines (permit #13–084 delivered by the Université de Montréal) and conforms to the mandatory guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Sampling permits were provided by the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife (MRNF).

A total of 262 specimens of the Chrosomus eos-neogaeus complex were analysed from 12 natural sites (S1 Table). The different biotypes were identified visually according to external morphological characteristics [41] and confirmed using genetic markers according to Binet and Angers [35]. Specimens included 77 individuals of the paternal species C. eos from seven geographical localities, 32 individuals of the maternal species C. neogaeus from a single locality and 153 individuals of the C. eos-neogaeus hybrids from 12 localities. The assignment of hybrid individuals to a given lineage was achieved using the multilocus genotypes of eight hypervariable microsatellites loci as described in Vergilino et al. [38]. A total of eight different hybrid lineages have been analysed (Table 1).

Download:

Table 1. Characteristics of the individuals analysed in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.t001

Micro-CT scan

Pharyngeal arches were visualised using micro-CT scan. Ethanol preserved fishes were scanned with a SkyScan 1173 micro-CT scan (Brucker-MicroCT, 2011, Belgium). For all individuals, settings were kept constant: source voltage = 58 kV, source current = 71 μA, exposure time = 465 ms, 3 averaging frames over 270° with a rotation step of 0.44°. Scanner flatfield was calibrated prior to each scanning session and flatfield correction was activated. Scans were acquired with no filter, medium resolution parameters (1080 x 1080 pixels) and the zoom was set between 17 and 19.9 μm (a standard zoom of 17 μm was used but had to be adjusted for larger specimens).

Projection images were reconstructed with constant parameters using NRecon (Version 1.6.6.0, SkyScan, Brucker-microCT, Belgium). Reconstruction parameters were kept constant: no smoothing, no beam hardening correction and ring artifact correction was kept at 10.

Reconstructed volumes were analysed with the CTAn package (Version 1.11.4.2, SkyScan, Brucker-micro CT, 2011, Belgium), in order to extract pharyngeal arches as volumes of interest for each specimen. Extraction of volumes was performed manually. Extracted volumes were then stacked with CTVox (Version 2.7.0, SkyScan, Brucker-microCT, 2011, Belgium) in order to visualise pharyngeal arches in 3D.

Extracted volumes were further analysed to produce 3D Polygon File Format mesh files (.ply files). Extracted volumes were converted from bitmap format to dicom format files (.DCM files) using SkyScan Dicom converter (Version 2.1, SkyScan, Brucker-micro CT, 2011, Belgium). Dicom files were subsequently loaded within the open-source software Slicer (Version 4.5 [42]).

3D models were rendered from dicom files using the editor module within Slicer and the thresholding algorithm. Generated models were verified individually and in conjunction with CTVox stacked volumes to ensure quality and fidelity. Model generation incurred artifacts such as holes within the pharyngeal arches and, when possible, thresholding was adjusted to reduce artifacts. Artifacts that did not hinder shape analysis or tooth counts were disregarded.

Counting pharyngeal teeth

The cyprinid dentition is commonly described with a dental formula [21, 43] referring to the number of teeth in the different rows of the pharyngeal arch. North American cyprinids have one or two rows of teeth on each pharyngeal hemi-arch [23]. As an example, a dental formula 1,5–5,1 indicates the presence of one tooth of the minor row and five teeth on the major row of the L-side–then five teeth on the major row and one tooth of the minor row of the R-side. The most frequent and widespread dental formula within a given biotype was considered the basal pattern for that biotype.

Replacement teeth (i.e., teeth not attached to the pharyngeal bone) were easily distinguished from functional teeth (i.e., teeth attached to the pharyngeal bone) by rotating 3D reconstructions. By convention, dental formulae take into account only the functional teeth [23]. Teeth are constantly lost and replaced during the lifetime of a fish. Replacement teeth are synthesised and mineralised before they attach to the underlying bone [19]. The presence of teeth was extrapolated based on the presence of a corresponding cavity associated with the loss of a functional tooth and the presence of a corresponding replacement tooth not yet attached to the bone [23].

Shape of pharyngeal arches

Geometric morphometric analyses of 3D models were used to describe and measure the shape of the seventh pharyngeal arch (the fifth branchial arch), here after referred to as the pharyngeal arches. A total of 123 individuals were analysed (Table 1), including 43 C. eos, 14 C. neogaeus and 66 hybrids of the same lineage (lineage B-01, [34, 38]) from seven geographical localities. The presence of a single lineage among multiple localities represents a unique design to control for genetic differences among individuals and to disentangle the environmental effect on the shape of pharyngeal arches.

Pharyngeal arches (both L and R) of Chrosomus eos-neogaeus are rigid crescent-shaped structures displaying an outer curved ridge that is posterior to the arch, and an inner curve dorsal to the arch that delimit the tooth-bearing area. The outer and inner curves represent an important component of the shape of the pharyngeal arch since it covers most of its length. Seven landmarks and 26 sliding semi-landmarks were used to define the shape of both the left and right sides of the pharyngeal arch (Fig 1). Because pharyngeal arches lack bone sutures and foramina, we resorted to Type 2 landmarks which are locally defined points of homology (see [44]). Landmarks were chosen based on their adequacy to describe the overall shape of the arch. Landmarks 1 (anterior-most tip) and 3 (dorsal-most tip) are the endpoints of the arch and serve as anchor points of the structure within the pharyngeal cavity. Sliding semi-landmarks [45] were used to better describe the complex curves of the arch. Thirteen semi-landmarks, delimited by landmarks 4 (change in curvature along the outer ridge) and 18 (anterior limit of the outer ridge), describe the shape of the outer curve of the pharyngeal arch. Thirteen semi-landmarks, delimited by landmarks 19 (change in curvature along the inner curve) and 33 (anterior limit of the inner curve), describe the inner curve of the pharyngeal arch (Fig 1).

Download:

Fig 1. Pharyngeal arches of parental species and hybrids.

A. Dorsal and B. lateral views of the pharyngeal arches. C. Landmark scheme for the pharyngeal arches. Filled circles represent landmarks and open circles represent semi-landmarks. Landmarks were positioned on left and right sides of the arch. L: left, R: right, A: anterior, P: posterior, D: dorsal, V: ventral.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.g001

Statistical analyses

The configurations of landmarks were subjected to a Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA [46]) to standardize and rotate landmark coordinates. Sliding was performed using the minimum bending energy criterion in order to minimise the deformation between the target shape and the mean shape [47, 48] and to remove the arbitrary variation in the semi-landmark distribution and spacing.

Following landmark superimposition, the R-side was reflected (by multiplying the x coordinates of each landmark and semi-landmark by ‘-1’) to allow landmark correspondence with the L-side. A second superimposition was thereafter performed to align left and right sides and shape variables were extracted from the resulting aligned Procrustes coordinates projected to the shape-tangent space [49, 50].

Landmarks and semi-landmarks were digitised twice for each individual to estimate measurement error due to landmark positioning. The relative amount of shape variation attributable to landmark positioning was assessed using a Procrustes Anova analysis [51] and significance was tested with permutation tests using 999 randomizations.

Phenotypic trajectory analyses [52–54] were used to compare the magnitude and direction of shape differences among C. eos, C. neogaeus and C. eos-neogaeus biotypes for the left and right sides separately.

Individuals were identified according to their biotype (C. eos, C. neogaeus or C. eos-neogaeus), sampled sites and dental formula. Partial redundancy analyses [55] were used to assess the influence of sampled sites and dental formulae on the shape variation of C. eos and C. eos-neogaeus. The percentages of the total shape variation that can be attributed to different factors were based on the adjusted R² (R²_adj.) [56] and significance of each fraction was tested by permutation tests using 999 randomizations.

Matching symmetry method [57] was used to quantify L-R differences for all biotypes. Procrustes Anova was used to decompose shape variation into variation among individuals, between sides and individual × side interaction [51]. Directional asymmetry was measured using variation between sides and tested using individual × side interaction as an error term. Fluctuating asymmetry was measured using individual × side interaction and tested against measurement error due to landmark positioning.

Statistical analyses were computed with the statistical programming environment R version 3.2.4. We used the vegan package (version 2.3–2 [58]) for multivariate analyses and geomorph package (version 3.0.2 [59]) for geometric morphometric analyses.

Results

Variation in dental formulae

A total of seven distinct dental formulae were detected amongst the 262 individuals (Fig 2). Two patterns are present in C. eos (n = 77). The basal dental formula is symmetric (0,5–5,0) and a single alternative formula (0,5–4,0) was observed in 10 out of 77 individuals. The asymmetric 0,5–4,0 pattern reflects the absence of the first tooth of the major row on the R-side. Two patterns are also observed in C. neogaeus (n = 32). The basal formula for this biotype is asymmetric (2,5–4,2) and a single alternative formula (2,4–4,2) was observed in 6 out of 32 individuals. The variable position of the alternative formula is the first tooth of the major row on the L-side. Parental species display dental formulae that differ in terms of the number of teeth on the minor arches: zero for C. eos and two for C. neogaeus. These results are consistent with previous studies [60–62].

Download:

Fig 2. Basal and alternative dental formulae in Chrosomus eos, C. neogaeus and hybrids.

Absent teeth in a given formula are indicated by open circle. For each formula, the proportion of individuals from a given biotype is given. The Simpson’s diversity index (D) [63] is provided for each biotype.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.g002

A higher disparity of dental formulae is observed in hybrids than in parental species (Fig 2). The symmetric formula 1,5–5,1 is expected to represent the basal pattern; it is present in all lineages and 58% of the individuals display this formula (Fig 2, Table 2). The 1,5–5,1 formula also requires the fewest changes to adopt alternative configurations, differing from other formulae from only one asymmetric or symmetric change. When compared to parental species, the hybrid basal dental formula displays an intermediate number of teeth on the minor arch (1,5–5,1) as reported by Goddard et al. [60] and Binet and Angers [35].

Download:

Table 2. Dental formulae of the different hybrid lineages.

For each lineage, the number of individuals per dental formula is given. Diversity refers to the Simpson’s diversity index.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.t002

The number of dental formulae, as well as the relative abundance of each formula are higher in hybrids than in parental species; this is reflected in the higher Simpson’s diversity index in hybrids (D = 0.5226) than in C. eos (D = 0.2260) and C. neogaeus (D = 0.3047). Two lineages, B-03 and B-06, displayed only the basal formula but we cannot rule out the possibility of alternative formulae for these lineages due to the low sample size (3 and 6 individuals, respectively; Table 1). Each of the other lineages presents two distinct dental patterns and display diversity ranging between 0.375 and 0.4995 (except A-06 D = 0.0997). Two alternative formulae involving variation of the minor row were found: six out of 11 individuals of lineage A-07 display the 0,5–5,0 formula observed in paternal species C. eos and a rarer formula, 2,5–5,1, found in a single individual out of 19 in lineage A-06.

The most frequent alternative dental formula is asymmetric (1,5–4,1) lacking one tooth on the R-side of the arch as observed on the major row of C. eos. This pattern is present in four distinct lineages (B-01, B-02, A-11 and A-18) and is represented by 37.5% of the individuals. However, when considering exclusively lineages where this pattern is present, 50.44% of the individuals shared this phenotype indicating the high prevalence of this alternative dental formula.

Between 75 to 100% of the C. eos individuals share the 0,5–5,0 dental formula (Fig 3); it is not correlated to site (R²_adj = 0.020507; P = 0.276). The number of C. eos individuals with an alternative formula is not significantly different from the one reported by Eastman and Underhill (1973) (11 out of 137 individuals; χ² = 1.3691; 1 df; P = 0.242). These results indicate a similar proportion of alternative pattern in C. eos from different locations.

Download:

Fig 3. Variation in dental formulae in C. eos and hybrid lineage B-01 among sites.

The relative abundance of basal and alternative dental formulae detected in A. C. eos and B. hybrids from each site. Numbers in parentheses indicate sample sizes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.g003

On the other hand, the abundance of individuals harboring the 1,5–5,1 basal dental formula among clones of the lineage B-01 ranges from zero (N-05) to 70% (AS-13) (Fig 3). Contrasting with the parental species C. eos, the abundance of the different dental formulae is correlated to sampled sites in B-01 hybrids (R²_adj = 0.1395; P = 0.004). This result indicates a non-random variation in abundance of individuals harboring the 1,5–5,1 formula among lakes.

Variation in shape of the pharyngeal arches

Procrustes ANOVA analyses confirmed that inter-individual variation was higher than within-individual variation associated to landmark positioning (L-side: R² = 0.8697, P = 0.001; R-side: R² = 0.8560, P = 0.001). Shape variation is not significantly different between landmark digitising replicates (L-side: P = 0.600; R-side: P = 0.633). Differences among biotypes and individuals as well as between L-R sides are therefore expected to be higher than the proportion of variation due to error in landmark positioning.

Redundancy analysis revealed that the shape of pharyngeal arch is significantly different among the two parental species and hybrids for the left and right sides (Fig 4). However, hybrids are more similar to C. eos than to C. neogaeus (Table 3). Trajectory analyses confirmed that the magnitude of phenotypic differences between hybrids and C. eos is significantly lower than those between hybrids and C. neogaeus (P < 0.001 for both sides).

Download:

Fig 4. Disparity on shape of pharyngeal arches among the parental species and hybrids.

Principal component analysis scatter plot for A. the left side and B. the right side for C. eos (red), hybrids (grey) and C. neogaeus (orange).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.g004

Download:

Table 3. Statistical assessment of shape differences among biotypes for the left and right sides of pharyngeal arch.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.t003

In contrast to the relative abundance of C. eos dental formulae that were randomly distributed among sites, the shape of C. eos pharyngeal arch was significantly different among sites for the L-side (R²_adj = 0.1274; P = 0.001) and R-side (R²_adj = 0.1398; P = 0.001). However, shape variation is not correlated to dental formulae for both L-side (R²_adj = -0.0031; P = 0.591) and R-side (R²_adj = 0.0053; P = 0.261).

For the pharyngeal arches of hybrids, partition of shape variation revealed significant effect of site for both the L-side (R²_adj = 0.0951; P = 0.001) and R-side (R²_adj = 0.1132; P = 0.001). Because relative abundance of dental formulae was detected to be not randomly distributed among sites, a confounding effect may exist between both factors. Partition of shape variation was therefore performed by controlling one or the other factor to take into account confounding effects. Pure site effect remained significant (L-side: R²_adj = 0.0993; P = 0.001; R-side: R²_adj = 0.1039; P = 0.001) indicating that shape of pharyngeal arches was still significantly different among sites, despite shape differences induced by dental formulae. Shape variation was correlated to individual dental formulae for the R-side (R²_adj = 0.0142; P = 0.029) but not for the L-side (R²_adj = 0.0086; P = 0.092). When controlling for the sites, no pure dental formulae effect was detected for the shape of the R-side (R²_adj = 0.0049; P = 0.191). The absence of pure dental formulae effect confirms the confounding effect with site and suggests therefore a co-variation of shape and dental formulae according to environmental conditions.

The difference in dental formulae effect upon shape variation of each side of the arch suggests a possible L-R asymmetry in hybrids. Because hybrids displayed distinct dental formulae among sites, DA and FA were assessed for hybrids by sorting individuals according to their dental formulae (1,5–5,1 vs 1,5–4,1) in order to test whether dental formulae may result from an environmental signal that is not site-specific. Because both parental species presented more stable dental formulae compared to hybrids (Fig 2), matching symmetry analyses were also performed on parental species as a control to assess whether asymmetry in shape of pharyngeal arches is caused by the absence of a tooth in the major row. DA and FA analyses were thus performed for parental individuals displaying symmetric (35 C. eos with 0,5–5,0 formula) and asymmetric (14 C. neogaeus with 2,5–4,2 formula) dental formulae (Table 4).

Download:

Table 4. Analysis of shape asymmetry.

Results of Procrustes Anova for parental species and hybrids displaying symmetric or asymmetric dental formula.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.t004

No FA was detected for C. eos (P = 0.604) and C. neogaeus (P = 0.099). No effect of side was detected in C. neogaeus (P = 0.654) in spite of asymmetric dental formulae. An effect of the side (L or R) was detected in C. eos (P = 0.009) but this effect did not remain significant when controlling for sites (P = 0.136). In hybrids, FA (P = 0.368) and DA (P = 0.241) are not significant for individuals with the symmetric 1,5–5,1 dental formula. Lack of L-R asymmetry for the shape of individuals harboring the basal formula suggests a high developmental stability in these hybrids.

On the other hand, FA (P = 0.010) is significant for individuals with the asymmetric 1,5–4,1 dental formula, indicating they exhibit a higher developmental instability than hybrids with the symmetric dental formula. Interestingly, in contrast to the shape differences observed among sites, individual side deviation is not significantly different among localities (R²_adj = 0.0036; P = 0.441) and confirms that FA is not associated with environmental conditions of sites. In addition, this lack of correlation indicates that site-specific shape differences observed in pharyngeal arches is not involved in L-R asymmetry. In addition to FA, DA is also highly significant (P = 0.001) and remains significant when controlling for sites (R²_adj = 0.0332, P = 0.003). This indicates that hybrids with asymmetric dental formulae also display a marked L-R difference in pharyngeal arch shape regardless of their site of origin.

L-R difference was assessed for each landmark (including both landmarks and semi-landmarks) individually by controlling for putative site effect. Only three landmarks (positioned on the anterior margin of the arch) displayed significant asymmetry (P < 0.043) with R²_adj that varied between 0.0312 and 0.0638 for the individuals bearing the 1,5–5,1 formula. On the other hand, analyses performed on individuals with the 1,5–4,1 formula revealed 18 landmarks with a significant L-R asymmetry (P < 0.043) with R²_adj that varied between 0.0228 and 0.0856 (Fig 5). Eleven of these landmarks coincide with the inner margin of the arch where the teeth are attached and where the tooth is lacking on the R-side. The seven remaining landmarks are located on the posterior margin of the arches and indicate a bias toward a thinner structure on the R-side.

Download:

Fig 5. Left-right asymmetry in shape for hybrids.

Left panel: landmarks with significant deviation are represented by red circles and a vector (magnified 5×). Right panel: deformation grid of the X and Z axes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.g005

Discussion

Analysis of eight clonal lineages of the hybrid fish Chrosomus eos-neogaeus revealed a higher number of dental formulae as well as a higher abundance of each formula in hybrids than in their sexual parental species, C. eos and C. neogaeus. The same basal symmetric dental formula (1,5–5,1) is detected regardless of the hybrid lineage. The most frequent alternative dental formulae is asymmetric (1,5–4,1) being present in several distinct lineages (B-01, B-02, A-11 and A-18). These dental formulae have been previously reported by Goddard et al. [60] and Binet and Angers [35]. While few studies have been undertaken to examine the intraspecific variation that may occur in dental formula (e.g. [23]), such variation appears unusual, especially in the absence of genetic difference among individuals.

Plasticity of the pharyngeal jaw apparatus

The correlation between the different dental formulae of hybrids from the lineage B-01 and sampled sites indicates a non-random variation in the abundance of individuals displaying the symmetric and asymmetric dental formula among lakes. This contrasts with the similar proportion of alternative patterns in the parental species C. eos among sites indicative of random changes. This non-random variation ruled out that the asymmetric dental formula of clonal hybrids is only the result of ontogenetic accidents as proposed in other species (e.g. [23]).

A given clonal lineage is not devoid of genetic variation as mutations occur constantly and populations from different sites are often fixed for different alleles [33–35, 38]. Fixation of new alleles leads to the loss of genetic polymorphism because all nucleotides are linked one to each other in absence of recombination (complete lineage sorting). It is thus extremely unlikely that genetic polymorphism be responsible for the morphological variation observed among populations. In addition, the same phenotypic variants have been observed in lineages resulting of distinct hybridization events, with distinct genetic background. Therefore, this relationship between the relative abundance of each dental formulae and the environment is indicative of a reaction norm triggered by environmental influence (e.g., site dependence).

The shape analysis of the arches also revealed that environmental conditions of each lake influence the shape of both hybrids with symmetric or asymmetric dental formula as well as C. eos. This suggests that parental species and hybrids display similar level of developmental stability (canalisation) during their respective development.

Asymmetry in the shape of pharyngeal arches

Dental formulae and arch shape are strongly correlated since DA was restricted to hybrids with asymmetric dental formula. Both asymmetry in shape and dental formulae occurred on the R-side. These results are consistent with previous study on zebrafish [26] for which a R-sided bias of asymmetric and aberrant pharyngeal arch development is observed in ace/fgf8 mutants. We can however exclude mechanical deformations of the R-side as a consequence of the absence of one tooth because no such DA was detected in C. neogaeus for which the basal formula is asymmetric (2,5–4,2). Systematic differences between L-R sides do not appear to be the result of developmental instability but a side-specific response to environmental conditions [7]. The L-R asymmetry detected on all individuals with the asymmetric formula 1,5–4,1 suggests an altered developmental pathway affecting both shape and dental formulae in these hybrids, regardless of the site of origin. Consistent discrete phenotypic changes in response to a given environmental signal are referred as phenotypic plasticity, more specifically polyphenism [64]. Such process is triggered by environmental signal and incorporated in the developmental pathway via epigenetic processes [15–17, 65].

A portion of L-R asymmetry results from stochastic errors (FA) during development indicating a higher developmental instability in hybrids with an asymmetric dental formula. FA is a good indicator of developmental instability [7, 13]. However, it cannot be associated to a genomic stress alone as all hybrids analysed for shape belong to the same lineage. In addition, FA is not significant in both parental species and hybrids with symmetric dental formula, indicating that the hybrid genome itself did not result in a higher instability during the development of pharyngeal arches. The hypothesis of genomic incompatibilities could then be ruled out at least for the dental formula and pharyngeal arch shape in clonal C. eos-neogaeus hybrids. FA is not different among sites. This indicated that developmental instability due to site-specific environmental conditions does not explain the variation observed in the different relative proportions of dental formulae among lakes. Therefore, FA detected in hybrids with an asymmetric dental formula likely results from a stressful development associated with the alternative pathway. This system provides an empirical support demonstrating the correlation between phenotypic plasticity and developmental instability. Developmental instability is often recognised as a consequence or more specifically a cost of phenotypic plasticity [66, 67]. However, the lack of studies on the functional performance of asymmetric shape and dental formulae do not allow assessment of fitness variation, if any.

A threshold character

The results of this study suggest a strong influence of the C. eos genome on the development of the whole pharyngeal arch in hybrids. With respect to the major tooth row, hybrids and C. eos display similar basal formula (n,5–5,n) as well as alternative formula (n,5–4,n). In addition, one lineage displays an alternative dental formula identical to that of C. eos (0,5–5,0). Tooth shape is more similar between C. eos and hybrids. Teeth are elongated and digitiform in both C. eos and hybrids, whereas they are more conical with much larger bases and a shorter length relative to the arch in C. neogaeus (Fig 1A).

The overall shape of pharyngeal arches also supports this trend. For instance, the lateral surface of the pharyngeal bones of C. neogaeus displayed a punctured texture characterised by small lacunae distributed irregularly, whereas C. eos and hybrids display large reticulated cavities (Fig 1B). However, reticulations are thinner and more abundant in hybrids than in C. eos. Finally, the analyses on arch shape revealed that hybrids are more similar to C. eos than to C. neogaeus. Trajectory analyses confirm that the magnitude of phenotypic differences between hybrids and C. eos is significantly lower than those between hybrids and C. neogaeus.

The lack of environmental influence on dental formulae variation in C. eos suggests a random process. In addition, the proportion of C. eos individuals with an alternative formula did not differ from the one reported by Eastman and Underhill [23] from a distinct geographical region. However, the same alternative dental formulae found on the major row in C. eos and hybrids suggests a shared alternative developmental pathway. Interestingly, C. eos individuals with an asymmetric dental formulae displayed a significant FA (P = 0.032) in spite of a low sample size (n = 7) indicating a higher instability during the development of the arch for the individuals displaying an asymmetric dental formulae. However, we do not detect DA (P = 0.209) in these individuals.

Altogether, these results suggest that discrete characters observed in pharyngeal arches could be a threshold character (Fig 6) for which genetic and environmental conditions determine a threshold value above which an alternative developmental pathway will be initiated [68]. Genetic changes in thresholds are known to influence reaction norms [69]. The high variation in dental formulae observed in hybrids and contrasting with the relative stability across species suggests this threshold value could have been influenced by hybridization. Hybrids would be therefore more sensitive to environmental signals than parental species. This alternative developmental pathway results in consistent asymmetric dental formula and arch shape as well as a higher developmental instability.

Download:

Fig 6. Schematic representation of the hypothetical processes occurring during the development of the pharyngeal arches in clonal hybrids.

The alternative pathway is induced when individuals reach a given threshold, resulting in consistent L-R asymmetry in shape and dental formula as well as developmental instability.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.g006

In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that variation in dental formulae of the clonal fish Chrosomus eos-neogaeus is a consequence of an alternative pathway induced by environmental signal(s) during the development of pharyngeal arches. Variation in dental formulae as well as pharyngeal arch shape of these hybrids would therefore represent a polyphenism, a particular case of phenotypic plasticity, rather than the result of developmental instability. The relative stability of dental formulae reported in multiple species including C. eos [23] suggests a higher sensitivity for the environmental signal triggering this alternative development pathway in the hybrids. The FA associated to this pathway highlights the correlation between phenotypic plasticity and development instability.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Landmarks and semi-landmarks coordinates raw data.

Biotypes, sampling site, dental formula and X, Y and Z coordinates for each landmark and semi-landmark positioning session and side are provide for each individual.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174235.s001

(XLSX)

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: CL KD TG RC BA.
Data curation: BA.
Formal analysis: CL KD TG.
Funding acquisition: RC BA.
Investigation: CL KD TG.
Methodology: CL KD TG RC BA.
Project administration: BA.
Resources: RC BA.
Supervision: RC BA.
Visualization: CL KD BA.
Writing – original draft: CL BA.
Writing – review & editing: CL KD TG RC BA.

References

1. Møller AP, Swaddle JP. Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution: Oxford University Press, UK; 1997.
2. Debat V, David P. Mapping phenotypes: canalization, plasticity and developmental stability. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001;16(10):555–61.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Palmer AR. Fluctuating asymmetry analyses: a primer. In: Markow TA, editor. Developmental instability: its origins and evolutionary implications: Springer Netherlands; 1994. p. 335–64.
4. Palmer AR, Strobeck C. Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, patterns. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1986;17:391–421.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Waddington CH. Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature. 1942;150(3811):563–5.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. West-Eberhard MJ. Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1989;20:249–78.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Klingenberg CP. A developmental perspective on developmental instability: theory, models and mechanisms. In: Polak M, editor. Developmental instability: causes and consequences: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 14–34.
8. Leary RF, Allendorf FW. Fluctuating asymmetry as an indicator of stress: implications for conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 1989;4(7):214–7. pmid:21227354
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Parsons P. Fluctuating asymmetry: an epigenetic measure of stress. Biol Rev. 1990;65(2):131–45. pmid:2190634
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Graham JH, Raz S, Hel-Or H, Nevo E. Fluctuating asymmetry: methods, theory, and applications. Symmetry. 2010;2(2):466–540.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Klingenberg CP, Nijhout HF. Genetics of fluctuating asymmetry: a developmental model of developmental instability. Evolution. 1999;53(2):358–75.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Leamy LJ, Klingenberg CP. The genetics and evolution of fluctuating asymmetry. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2005;36:1–21.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Parsons P. Fluctuating asymmetry: a biological monitor of environmental and genomic stress. Heredity. 1992;68(4):361–4.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Levin M. Left–right asymmetry in embryonic development: a comprehensive review. Mech Dev. 2005;122(1):3–25. pmid:15582774
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Kucharski R, Maleszka J, Foret S, Maleszka R. Nutritional control of reproductive status in honeybees via DNA methylation. Science. 2008;319(5871):1827–30. pmid:18339900
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Weaver IC, Cervoni N, Champagne FA, D'Alessio AC, Sharma S, Seckl JR, et al. Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7(8):847–54. pmid:15220929
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Blewitt ME, Vickaryous NK, Paldi A, Koseki H, Whitelaw E. Dynamic reprogramming of DNA methylation at an epigenetically sensitive allele in mice. PLoS Genet. 2006;2(4):e49. pmid:16604157
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Peyer B. Comparative odontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1968.
19. Huysseune A, Sire JY. Evolution of patterns and processes in teeth and tooth‐related tissues in non‐mammalian vertebrates. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(S1):437–81.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Engeman JM, Aspinwall N, Mabee PM. Development of the pharyngeal arch skeleton in Catostomus commersonii (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). J Morphol. 2009;270(3):291–305. pmid:19034917
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Smith RE, Hocutt CH. Formulae variations of pharyngeal tooth counts in the cyprinid genus Notropis. Copeia. 1981;1981(1):222–4.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Evans HE, Deubler EE. Pharyngeal tooth replacement in Semotilus atromaculatus and Clinostomus elongatus, two species of cyprinid fishes. Copeia. 1955;1955(1):31–41.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Eastman JT, Underhill JC. Intraspecific variation in the pharyngeal tooth formulae of some cyprinid fishes. Copeia. 1973;1973(1):45–53.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Essner JJ, Amack JD, Nyholm MK, Harris EB, Yost HJ. Kupffer's vesicle is a ciliated organ of asymmetry in the zebrafish embryo that initiates left-right development of the brain, heart and gut. Development. 2005;132(6):1247–60. pmid:15716348
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Qian M, Yao S, Jing L, He J, Xiao C, Zhang T, et al. ENC1-like integrates the retinoic acid/FGF signaling pathways to modulate ciliogenesis of Kupffer’s vesicle during zebrafish embryonic development. Dev Biol. 2013;374(1):85–95. pmid:23201577
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Albertson RC, Yelick PC. Roles for fgf8 signaling in left–right patterning of the visceral organs and craniofacial skeleton. Dev Biol. 2005;283(2):310–21. pmid:15932752
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Hubbs CL, Hubbs LC. Bilateral asymmetry and bilateral variation in fishes. Paper Mich Acad Sci Arts Lett. 1945;30:229–310.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Stock DW. Zebrafish dentition in comparative context. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2007;308(5):523–49. pmid:17607704
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Pasco-Viel E, Charles C, Chevret P, Semon M, Tafforeau P, Viriot L, et al. Evolutionary trends of the pharyngeal dentition in Cypriniformes (Actinopterygii: Ostariophysi). PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11293. pmid:20585584
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Pasco-Viel E, Yang L, Veran M, Balter V, Mayden RL, Laudet V, et al. Stability versus diversity of the dentition during evolutionary radiation in cyprinine fish. Proc R Soc B. 2014;281(1780):20132688. pmid:24523268
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Hung NM, Ryan TM, Stauffer JR, Madsen H. Does hardness of food affect the development of pharyngeal teeth of the black carp, Mylopharyngodon piceus (Pisces: Cyprinidae)? Biol Control. 2015;80:156–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Dong G, Dong Q, Liu Y, Lou B, Feng J, Wang K, et al. High-resolution micro-CT scanning as an innovative tool for evaluating dental hard tissue development. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(4):335–44.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Leung C, Breton S, Angers B. Facing environmental predictability with different sources of epigenetic variation. Ecol Evol. 2016;6(15):5234–45. pmid:27551379
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Angers B, Schlosser IJ. The origin of Phoxinus eos-neogaeus unisexual hybrids. Mol Ecol. 2007;16(21):4562–71. pmid:17892466
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Binet MC, Angers B. Genetic identification of members of the Phoxinus eos‐neogaeus hybrid complex. J Fish Biol. 2005;67(4):1169–77.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Elder JF, Schlosser IJ. Extreme clonal uniformity of Phoxinus eos/neogaeus gynogens (Pisces: Cyprinidae) among variable habitats in northern Minnesota beaver ponds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995;92(11):5001–5. pmid:7761438
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Goddard K, Megwinoff O, Wessner L, Giaimo F. Confirmation of gynogenesis in Phoxinus eos-neogaeus (Pisces: Cyprinidae). J Hered. 1998;89(2):151–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Vergilino R, Leung C, Angers B. Inconsistent phylogeographic pattern between a sperm dependent fish and its host: in situ hybridization vs dispersal. BMC Evol Biol. 2016;16(1):1–12.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Palmer AR, Strobeck C. Fluctuating asymmetry as a measure of developmental stability: implications of non-normal distributions and power of statistical tests. Acta Zool Fenn. 1992;191:57–72.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Demontis D, Pertoldi C, Passamonti M, Scali V. Increased fluctuating asymmetry in a naturally occurring hybrid zone between the stick insects Bacillus rossius rossius and Bacillus rossius redtenbacheri. J Insect Sci. 2010;10(1):147.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. New JG. Hybridization between two cyprinids, Chrosomus eos and Chrosomus neogaeus. Copeia. 1962:147–52.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin J-C, Pujol S, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1323–41. pmid:22770690
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Jordan DS, Evermann B. The Fishes of North and Middle America. Bull U S Natl Mus. 1896;Pt. 1:(47):1–124.
44. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press; 2012.
45. Gunz P, Mitteroecker P. Semilandmarks: a method for quantifying curves and surfaces. Hystrix. 2013;24(1):103–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Biol. 1990;39(1):40–59.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Bookstein FL. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal. 1997;1(3):225–43. pmid:9873908
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol. 2009;36(2):235–47.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Dryden I, Mardia K. Multivariate shape analysis. Sankhya Ser A. 1993;55:460–80.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Rohlf FJ. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J Classification. 1999;16(2):197–223.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Klingenberg CP, McIntyre GS. Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution. 1998;52:1363–75.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Adams DC, Collyer ML. A general framework for the analysis of phenotypic trajectories in evolutionary studies. Evolution. 2009;63(5):1143–54. pmid:19210539
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Collyer ML, Adams DC. Phenotypic trajectory analysis: comparison of shape change patterns in evolution and ecology. Hystrix. 2013;24(1):75–83.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Collyer ML, Adams DC. Analysis of two‐state multivariate phenotypic change in ecological studies. Ecology. 2007;88(3):683–92. pmid:17503596
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology. 1992;73(3):1045–55.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology. 2006;87(10):2614–25. pmid:17089669
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Klingenberg CP, Barluenga M, Meyer A. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution. 2002;56(10):1909–20. pmid:12449478
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O'Hara R, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2015:http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. (accessed August 2016)
59. Adams DC, Otárola‐Castillo E. geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4(4):393–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Goddard KA, Dawley RM, Dowling TE. Origin and genetic relationships of diploid, triploid, and diploid-triploid mosaic biotypes in the Phoxinus eos-neogaeus unisexual complex. In: Dawley R, Bogart J, editors. Evolution and ecology of unisexual vertebrates. New York State Museum, New York1989. p. Bull. 466, pp. 268–80.
61. Stasiak RH. Morphology and variation in the finescale dace, Chrosomus neogaeus. Copeia. 1977;1977(4):771–4.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Eastman JT. The pharyngeal bones and teeth of Minnesota cyprinid and catostomid fishes: functional morphology, variation and taxonomic significance. [Ph.D. Thesis]: University of Minnesota.; 1970.
63. Simpson EH. Measurement of diversity. Nature. 1949;163:688.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
64. Nijhout HF. Development and evolution of adaptive polyphenisms. Evol Dev. 2003;5(1):9–18. pmid:12492404
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
65. Angers B, Castonguay E, Massicotte R. Environmentally induced phenotypes and DNA methylation: how to deal with unpredictable conditions until the next generation and after. Mol Ecol. 2010;19(7):1283–95. pmid:20298470
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
66. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS. Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998;13(2):77–81. pmid:21238209
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
67. Murren CJ, Auld JR, Callahan H, Ghalambor CK, Handelsman CA, Heskel MA, et al. Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity: limits and costs of phenotype and plasticity. Heredity. 2015;115(4):293–301. pmid:25690179
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
68. Roff DA. The evolution of threshold traits in animals. Q Rev Biol. 1996;71(1):3–35.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
69. Whitman D, Agrawal A. What is phenotypic plasticity and why is it important? In: Whitman D, Ananthakrishnan T, editors. Phenotypic Plasticity of Insects: Mechanisms and Consequences. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers; 2009. p. 1–63.

[ref1] 1. Møller AP, Swaddle JP. Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution: Oxford University Press, UK; 1997.

[ref2] 2. Debat V, David P. Mapping phenotypes: canalization, plasticity and developmental stability. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001;16(10):555–61.
View Article
Google Scholar

[3] View Article

[4] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Palmer AR. Fluctuating asymmetry analyses: a primer. In: Markow TA, editor. Developmental instability: its origins and evolutionary implications: Springer Netherlands; 1994. p. 335–64.

[ref4] 4. Palmer AR, Strobeck C. Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, patterns. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1986;17:391–421.
View Article
Google Scholar

[7] View Article

[8] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Waddington CH. Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature. 1942;150(3811):563–5.
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. West-Eberhard MJ. Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1989;20:249–78.
View Article
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Klingenberg CP. A developmental perspective on developmental instability: theory, models and mechanisms. In: Polak M, editor. Developmental instability: causes and consequences: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 14–34.

[ref8] 8. Leary RF, Allendorf FW. Fluctuating asymmetry as an indicator of stress: implications for conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 1989;4(7):214–7. pmid:21227354
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Parsons P. Fluctuating asymmetry: an epigenetic measure of stress. Biol Rev. 1990;65(2):131–45. pmid:2190634
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Graham JH, Raz S, Hel-Or H, Nevo E. Fluctuating asymmetry: methods, theory, and applications. Symmetry. 2010;2(2):466–540.
View Article
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Klingenberg CP, Nijhout HF. Genetics of fluctuating asymmetry: a developmental model of developmental instability. Evolution. 1999;53(2):358–75.
View Article
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Leamy LJ, Klingenberg CP. The genetics and evolution of fluctuating asymmetry. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2005;36:1–21.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Parsons P. Fluctuating asymmetry: a biological monitor of environmental and genomic stress. Heredity. 1992;68(4):361–4.
View Article
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Levin M. Left–right asymmetry in embryonic development: a comprehensive review. Mech Dev. 2005;122(1):3–25. pmid:15582774
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] PubMed/NCBI

[39] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Kucharski R, Maleszka J, Foret S, Maleszka R. Nutritional control of reproductive status in honeybees via DNA methylation. Science. 2008;319(5871):1827–30. pmid:18339900
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] PubMed/NCBI

[43] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Weaver IC, Cervoni N, Champagne FA, D'Alessio AC, Sharma S, Seckl JR, et al. Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7(8):847–54. pmid:15220929
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] PubMed/NCBI

[47] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Blewitt ME, Vickaryous NK, Paldi A, Koseki H, Whitelaw E. Dynamic reprogramming of DNA methylation at an epigenetically sensitive allele in mice. PLoS Genet. 2006;2(4):e49. pmid:16604157
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] PubMed/NCBI

[51] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Peyer B. Comparative odontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1968.

[ref19] 19. Huysseune A, Sire JY. Evolution of patterns and processes in teeth and tooth‐related tissues in non‐mammalian vertebrates. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(S1):437–81.
View Article
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Engeman JM, Aspinwall N, Mabee PM. Development of the pharyngeal arch skeleton in Catostomus commersonii (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). J Morphol. 2009;270(3):291–305. pmid:19034917
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] PubMed/NCBI

[59] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Smith RE, Hocutt CH. Formulae variations of pharyngeal tooth counts in the cyprinid genus Notropis. Copeia. 1981;1981(1):222–4.
View Article
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Evans HE, Deubler EE. Pharyngeal tooth replacement in Semotilus atromaculatus and Clinostomus elongatus, two species of cyprinid fishes. Copeia. 1955;1955(1):31–41.
View Article
Google Scholar

[64] View Article

[65] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Eastman JT, Underhill JC. Intraspecific variation in the pharyngeal tooth formulae of some cyprinid fishes. Copeia. 1973;1973(1):45–53.
View Article
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Essner JJ, Amack JD, Nyholm MK, Harris EB, Yost HJ. Kupffer's vesicle is a ciliated organ of asymmetry in the zebrafish embryo that initiates left-right development of the brain, heart and gut. Development. 2005;132(6):1247–60. pmid:15716348
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Qian M, Yao S, Jing L, He J, Xiao C, Zhang T, et al. ENC1-like integrates the retinoic acid/FGF signaling pathways to modulate ciliogenesis of Kupffer’s vesicle during zebrafish embryonic development. Dev Biol. 2013;374(1):85–95. pmid:23201577
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Albertson RC, Yelick PC. Roles for fgf8 signaling in left–right patterning of the visceral organs and craniofacial skeleton. Dev Biol. 2005;283(2):310–21. pmid:15932752
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Hubbs CL, Hubbs LC. Bilateral asymmetry and bilateral variation in fishes. Paper Mich Acad Sci Arts Lett. 1945;30:229–310.
View Article
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Stock DW. Zebrafish dentition in comparative context. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2007;308(5):523–49. pmid:17607704
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Pasco-Viel E, Charles C, Chevret P, Semon M, Tafforeau P, Viriot L, et al. Evolutionary trends of the pharyngeal dentition in Cypriniformes (Actinopterygii: Ostariophysi). PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11293. pmid:20585584
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Pasco-Viel E, Yang L, Veran M, Balter V, Mayden RL, Laudet V, et al. Stability versus diversity of the dentition during evolutionary radiation in cyprinine fish. Proc R Soc B. 2014;281(1780):20132688. pmid:24523268
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Hung NM, Ryan TM, Stauffer JR, Madsen H. Does hardness of food affect the development of pharyngeal teeth of the black carp, Mylopharyngodon piceus (Pisces: Cyprinidae)? Biol Control. 2015;80:156–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Dong G, Dong Q, Liu Y, Lou B, Feng J, Wang K, et al. High-resolution micro-CT scanning as an innovative tool for evaluating dental hard tissue development. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(4):335–44.
View Article
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Leung C, Breton S, Angers B. Facing environmental predictability with different sources of epigenetic variation. Ecol Evol. 2016;6(15):5234–45. pmid:27551379
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[103] View Article

[104] PubMed/NCBI

[105] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Angers B, Schlosser IJ. The origin of Phoxinus eos-neogaeus unisexual hybrids. Mol Ecol. 2007;16(21):4562–71. pmid:17892466
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] PubMed/NCBI

[109] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Binet MC, Angers B. Genetic identification of members of the Phoxinus eos‐neogaeus hybrid complex. J Fish Biol. 2005;67(4):1169–77.
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Elder JF, Schlosser IJ. Extreme clonal uniformity of Phoxinus eos/neogaeus gynogens (Pisces: Cyprinidae) among variable habitats in northern Minnesota beaver ponds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995;92(11):5001–5. pmid:7761438
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Goddard K, Megwinoff O, Wessner L, Giaimo F. Confirmation of gynogenesis in Phoxinus eos-neogaeus (Pisces: Cyprinidae). J Hered. 1998;89(2):151–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Vergilino R, Leung C, Angers B. Inconsistent phylogeographic pattern between a sperm dependent fish and its host: in situ hybridization vs dispersal. BMC Evol Biol. 2016;16(1):1–12.
View Article
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Palmer AR, Strobeck C. Fluctuating asymmetry as a measure of developmental stability: implications of non-normal distributions and power of statistical tests. Acta Zool Fenn. 1992;191:57–72.
View Article
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Demontis D, Pertoldi C, Passamonti M, Scali V. Increased fluctuating asymmetry in a naturally occurring hybrid zone between the stick insects Bacillus rossius rossius and Bacillus rossius redtenbacheri. J Insect Sci. 2010;10(1):147.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. New JG. Hybridization between two cyprinids, Chrosomus eos and Chrosomus neogaeus. Copeia. 1962:147–52.
View Article
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin J-C, Pujol S, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1323–41. pmid:22770690
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] PubMed/NCBI

[135] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Jordan DS, Evermann B. The Fishes of North and Middle America. Bull U S Natl Mus. 1896;Pt. 1:(47):1–124.

[ref44] 44. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press; 2012.

[ref45] 45. Gunz P, Mitteroecker P. Semilandmarks: a method for quantifying curves and surfaces. Hystrix. 2013;24(1):103–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Biol. 1990;39(1):40–59.
View Article
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Bookstein FL. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal. 1997;1(3):225–43. pmid:9873908
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol. 2009;36(2):235–47.
View Article
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Dryden I, Mardia K. Multivariate shape analysis. Sankhya Ser A. 1993;55:460–80.
View Article
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Rohlf FJ. Shape statistics: Procrustes superimpositions and tangent spaces. J Classification. 1999;16(2):197–223.
View Article
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Klingenberg CP, McIntyre GS. Geometric morphometrics of developmental instability: analyzing patterns of fluctuating asymmetry with Procrustes methods. Evolution. 1998;52:1363–75.
View Article
Google Scholar

[158] View Article

[159] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Adams DC, Collyer ML. A general framework for the analysis of phenotypic trajectories in evolutionary studies. Evolution. 2009;63(5):1143–54. pmid:19210539
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] PubMed/NCBI

[163] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Collyer ML, Adams DC. Phenotypic trajectory analysis: comparison of shape change patterns in evolution and ecology. Hystrix. 2013;24(1):75–83.
View Article
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Collyer ML, Adams DC. Analysis of two‐state multivariate phenotypic change in ecological studies. Ecology. 2007;88(3):683–92. pmid:17503596
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] PubMed/NCBI

[170] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology. 1992;73(3):1045–55.
View Article
Google Scholar

[172] View Article

[173] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology. 2006;87(10):2614–25. pmid:17089669
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] PubMed/NCBI

[177] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Klingenberg CP, Barluenga M, Meyer A. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution. 2002;56(10):1909–20. pmid:12449478
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[179] View Article

[180] PubMed/NCBI

[181] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O'Hara R, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2015:http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. (accessed August 2016)

[ref59] 59. Adams DC, Otárola‐Castillo E. geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4(4):393–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[184] View Article

[185] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Goddard KA, Dawley RM, Dowling TE. Origin and genetic relationships of diploid, triploid, and diploid-triploid mosaic biotypes in the Phoxinus eos-neogaeus unisexual complex. In: Dawley R, Bogart J, editors. Evolution and ecology of unisexual vertebrates. New York State Museum, New York1989. p. Bull. 466, pp. 268–80.

[ref61] 61. Stasiak RH. Morphology and variation in the finescale dace, Chrosomus neogaeus. Copeia. 1977;1977(4):771–4.
View Article
Google Scholar

[188] View Article

[189] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Eastman JT. The pharyngeal bones and teeth of Minnesota cyprinid and catostomid fishes: functional morphology, variation and taxonomic significance. [Ph.D. Thesis]: University of Minnesota.; 1970.

[ref63] 63. Simpson EH. Measurement of diversity. Nature. 1949;163:688.
View Article
Google Scholar

[192] View Article

[193] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Nijhout HF. Development and evolution of adaptive polyphenisms. Evol Dev. 2003;5(1):9–18. pmid:12492404
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[195] View Article

[196] PubMed/NCBI

[197] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Angers B, Castonguay E, Massicotte R. Environmentally induced phenotypes and DNA methylation: how to deal with unpredictable conditions until the next generation and after. Mol Ecol. 2010;19(7):1283–95. pmid:20298470
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[199] View Article

[200] PubMed/NCBI

[201] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Wilson DS. Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998;13(2):77–81. pmid:21238209
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[203] View Article

[204] PubMed/NCBI

[205] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Murren CJ, Auld JR, Callahan H, Ghalambor CK, Handelsman CA, Heskel MA, et al. Constraints on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity: limits and costs of phenotype and plasticity. Heredity. 2015;115(4):293–301. pmid:25690179
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[207] View Article

[208] PubMed/NCBI

[209] Google Scholar

[ref68] 68. Roff DA. The evolution of threshold traits in animals. Q Rev Biol. 1996;71(1):3–35.
View Article
Google Scholar

[211] View Article

[212] Google Scholar

[ref69] 69. Whitman D, Agrawal A. What is phenotypic plasticity and why is it important? In: Whitman D, Ananthakrishnan T, editors. Phenotypic Plasticity of Insects: Mechanisms and Consequences. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers; 2009. p. 1–63.

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Material and methods

Specimen sampling and identification

Micro-CT scan

Counting pharyngeal teeth

Shape of pharyngeal arches

Statistical analyses

Results

Variation in dental formulae

Variation in shape of the pharyngeal arches

Discussion

Plasticity of the pharyngeal jaw apparatus

Asymmetry in the shape of pharyngeal arches

A threshold character

Supporting information

S1 Table. Landmarks and semi-landmarks coordinates raw data.

Author Contributions

References