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.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

Flies evolved a shock-absorber tissue used during embryonic development

The role of tissue that forms between the head and trunk of a fly embryo has been unclear. It turns out that it absorbs forces when nearby cells move and divide.
By
  1. Thibaut Brunet

    1. Thibaut Brunet is in the Evolutionary Cell Biology and Evolution of Morphogenesis Unit, Pasteur Institute, Paris Cité University, CNRS UMR3691, 75015 Paris, France.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Certain mysteries hide in plain sight. After a while, they no longer seem to be enigmas worthy of resolution, but, rather, facts of life that it would be eccentric to question. Writing in Nature, Dey et al.1 and Vellutini et al.2 propose a resolution to one such overlooked problem: the function of a fold of tissue called the cephalic furrow that is found in fruit-fly embryos of the species Drosophila melanogaster. This prominent fold separating the fly’s head from its trunk is one of the first visible hallmarks of developing fruit-fly embryos, but its function has been unclear until now. By integrating data from genetics, analysis of mechanical forces and evolution, both studies propose that the cephalic furrow evolved to absorb mechanical stress generated by the collision of adjacent developing cells.

Access options

Access through your institution

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

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

Nature 646, 552-554 (2025)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02532-8

References

  1. Dey, B. et al. Nature 646, 637–646 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vellutini, B. C. et al. Nature 646, 627–636 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Turner, F. R. & Mahowald, A. P. Dev. Biol. 57, 403–416 (1977).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dicko, M. et al. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005443 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Popkova, A. et al. Dev. Cell 59, 400–414 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Whyte, L. L. Acta Biotheor. 17, 33–48 (1964).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Arthur, W. Biased Embryos and Evolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Collinet, C. & Lecuit, T. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 22, 245–265 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Newman, S. A. & Müller, G. B. J. Exp. Zool. 288, 304–317 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bailleul, R. et al. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.07.637025 (2025).

  11. Kalinka, A. T. & Tomancak, P. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 385–393 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

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

Search

Advanced search

Quick links