Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

A major difference between transdetermination and homeosis

Abstract

IN Drosophila, the adult structures arise from nests of larval cells called imaginal disks, whose state of determination with respect to disk type is usually fixed. However, two processes are known which can change determination from one disk type to another; one occurs in situ and is due to homeotic mutations, and the other is seen after culture of disk material and is called transdetermination. Similarities between the two, notably the lack of intermediate states, have led to the idea that they are different aspects of the same phenomenon1,2. The existence of homeotic mutations argues that determination in normal development is underlain by a genetic switching mechanism3,4; transdetermination could result from epigenetic changes in this system. If this is so then the two phenomena should have characteristics in common. Studies of homeotic mutants have shown that a structure in one disk is always transformed into a specific structure from the other disk5,6; for example clones of bithorax in an anterior dorsal position in the haltere show anterior dorsal wing structures5. This is used as a criterion of homology, and also indicates that all disks use the same positional information7. Differences between disks must be due to different interpretation of this information, mediated in some way by the wild-type alleles of the homeotic genes. It is not yet known whether transdetermination also shows position-specific transformation; if the two phenomena are closely related then this should be the case. It is often assumed to be so, because there have been reports of transdetermination between leg and antenna in which structures such as claw and arista, thought from homeotic mutants to be homologous, are found adjacent to one another in implants1. However, these findings could also be explained by non-homologous transdetermination followed by either movement together of homologous structures due to preferential cell affinities, or intercalary regeneration between the non-homologous structures. Also, regeneration before transdetermination can give misleading results. One cannot simply ask to what structures a given disk fragment will transdetermine as the fragment might regenerate the rest of the disk first, and non-regenerating (that is duplicating) fragments do not appear to transdetermine (unpublished observations, and ref. 8). One solution to these problems is to find a disk in which transdetermination occurs only in one part, and this is the case in the foreleg disk. The experiments reported here were designed to find whether this part transdetermines to a homologous part of the wing disk.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Postlethwait, J. & Schneiderman, H. A. Rev. Genet. 7, 381–433 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gehring, W. in The Biology of Imaginal Discs (eds Ursprung, H. & Nöthiger, R.) 1–34 (Springer, Berlin, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Garcia-Bellido, A. Ciba Fndn Symp. 29, 161–182 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kauffman, S. Science 181, 310–318 (1973).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Morata, G. & Garcia-Bellido, A. Wilhelm Roux' Arch. 179, 125–143 (1976).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Postlethwait, J. & Schneiderman, H. Devl Biol. 25, 606–640 (1971).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wolpert, L. J. theor. Biol. 25, 1–47 (1969).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schubiger, G. Devl Biol. 26, 277–295 (1971).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Strub, S. Wilhelm Roux' Arch. 182, 69–74 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lindsley, D. & Grell, E. G. Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster, 552 (Carnegie Institution of Washington Publications, 627 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hadorn, E. Devl Biol. 13, 424–509 (1966).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Strub, S. Wilhelm Roux' Arch. 182, 75–92 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilcox, M. & Smith, R. J. Devl Biol. 60, 287–297 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bryant, P. J. J. exp. Zool. 193, 49–78 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Garcia-Bellido, A. Am. Zool. 17, 613–629 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gehring, W. Devl Biol. 16, 438–456 (1967).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Garcia-Bellido, A. Expl Cell Res. 44, 383–392 (1966).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

KARLSSON, J. A major difference between transdetermination and homeosis. Nature 279, 426–428 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/279426a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/279426a0

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing