Developmental variations among Panagrolaimid nematodes indicate developmental system drift within a small taxonomic unit.

Comparative studies of nematode embryogenesis among different clades revealed considerable variations. However, to what extent developmental differences exist between closely related species has mostly remained nebulous. Here, we explore the correlation between phylogenetic neighborhood and developmental variation in a restricted and morphologically particularly uniform taxonomic group (Panagrolaimidae) to determine to what extent (1) morphological and developmental characters go along with molecular data and thus can serve as diagnostic tools for the definition of kinship and (2) developmental system drift (DSD; modifications of developmental patterns without corresponding morphological changes) can be found within a small taxonomic unit. Our molecular approaches firmly support subdivision of Panagrolaimid nematodes into two monophyletic groups. These can be discriminated by distinct peculiarities in early embryonic cell lineages and a mirror-image expression pattern of the gene skn-1. This suggests major changes in the logic of cell specification and the action of DSD in the studied representatives of the two neighboring nematode taxa.

The genome of Romanomermis culicivorax: revealing fundamental changes in the core developmental genetic toolkit in Nematoda.

BACKGROUND: The genetics of development in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans has been described in exquisite detail. The phylum Nematoda has two classes: Chromadorea (which includes C. elegans) and the Enoplea. While the development of many chromadorean species resembles closely that of C. elegans, enoplean nematodes show markedly different patterns of early cell division and cell fate assignment. Embryogenesis of the enoplean Romanomermis culicivorax has been studied in detail, but the genetic circuitry underpinning development in this species has not been explored. RESULTS: We generated a draft genome for R. culicivorax and compared its gene content with that of C. elegans, a second enoplean, the vertebrate parasite Trichinella spiralis, and a representative arthropod, Tribolium castaneum. This comparison revealed that R. culicivorax has retained components of the conserved ecdysozoan developmental gene toolkit lost in C. elegans. T. spiralis has independently lost even more of this toolkit than has C. elegans. However, the C. elegans toolkit is not simply depauperate, as many novel genes essential for embryogenesis in C. elegans are not found in, or have only extremely divergent homologues in R. culicivorax and T. spiralis. Our data imply fundamental differences in the genetic programmes not only for early cell specification but also others such as vulva formation and sex determination. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the apparent morphological conservatism, major differences in the molecular logic of development have evolved within the phylum Nematoda. R. culicivorax serves as a tractable system to contrast C. elegans and understand how divergent genomic and thus regulatory backgrounds nevertheless generate a conserved phenotype. The R. culicivorax draft genome will promote use of this species as a research model.