From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design

Rating:
Summary: Tough going, but worth it!
Review: As a professor of English at a Swedish university I devoted several years to studies of British history of ideas, leading up, eventually, to a book about the general public's reception of Darwin's evolution theory in Mid-Victorian Britain. The subject has fascinated me ever since. I have naturally followed with interest the subsequent debates on evolutionary biology, including its philosophical implications, in the pages of such journals as Science and Nature. Therefore the title of the present book appealed to me. It seemed to promise an introduction to aspects of the Darwinian theory which were certainly unknown to Darwin and his times. At the same time I realised that knowing more about genetics was a must for me, if I was to keep abreast of the debate about Darwin.

I must confess I found it hard to assimilate the text, in spite of a clear style, and excellent illustrations. The sheer weight of unfamiliar facts and concepts made the reading laborious, to the point of exhaustion. But about half-way through the book (and helped by excursions into some undergraduate biological textbooks) I found that I had after all assimilated enough of the content to see that , for instance, the geneticist's seemingly perverse interest in the banana fly, Drosophila melanogaster, was indeed a rational choice. Many of the basic genes of the banana fly, especially those responsible for the early development of the fertilized egg onwards, are the same, or nearly so, as those that build up man. Not only are individual genes similar: their interactions with each other and their functions are also similar. For instance, though the banana fly's eyes are constructed entirely differently from those of man, their development, from egg to adult, are still controlled by genes that are clearly related to each other, and interact with other genes in similar ways.

These fundamental similarities between an insect and a human implies that their common roots must lie some 500 million years back in time, presumably in tiny organisms existing in the oceans at that time. Moreover, it seems that the genes in question, to be found in the DNA of the chromosomes of both insects and humans, probably come from even tinier organisms, namely primitive bacteria, which the multicellular organisms had incorporated, at first as parasites or symbionts, in their own more advanced cells. If so, we are carried back even further back in time, perhaps to a billion years before now. We seem to be on the point of uniting the biological and physical (and chemical) evolution of our planet. Darwin surely would have loved that prospect, far beyond his own reach. This book is not an easy read. But it will yield a rich reward to the persistent reader. Incidentally, such a reader might do worse than go on to read an astronomer's view of the same wide panorama: Delsemme's 0ur Cosmic Origins.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Evo/Devo text
Review: I havn't read the book all the way through, but from what I've seen, its an excellent book, good illustrations, straightforward info. This particular area of biology - using developmental genetics to elucidate evolutionary processes and relationships, is in my opinion one of the most exciting areas of biology today. I've had some advanced level classes in developmental and evolutionary biology myself, and I would probably have to say that for the lay person, the book may be somewhat out of grasp.

In regards to the mouse/fly eye develompent experiment, it is simply showing that the genes that regulate the most fundamental levels of development in the eye (or any part of the organism) are the same for fly and mouse... over the years, the end results have evolved to be much different, but at the deepest levels, the the genes that regulate the most fundamental develpment are still the same. ie. eye gene in mouse = mouse eye, eye gene in fly = fly eye. eye gene does the same thing in fly our mouse.

Rating:
Summary: I can't handle it yet.
Review: This is a beautiful book with an attractive
illustration on almost every page.
A book review in Nature writes this intriguing statement,

"Despite more than 600 million years
of separate evolution of flies and mice,
the introduction of the [Pax6] mouse gene into flies
can induce new eye tissue -- not of the
camera-like eyes of mammals, but of the
insect compound eye!"

I wanted to understand this better.
I'm a nonbio major who spent all my spare
time in the past year reading biology books.
So I went to the bookstore and spent three hours
with this book. I found that I didn't have enough background
be able to gain a deeper understanding on the intriguing quotation.
Hopefully I'll be able to handle it after another year of preparation.

Rating:
Summary: I can't handle it yet.
Review: This is a beautiful book with an attractive
illustration on almost every page.
A book review in Nature writes this intriguing statement,

"Despite more than 600 million years
of separate evolution of flies and mice,
the introduction of the [Pax6] mouse gene into flies
can induce new eye tissue -- not of the
camera-like eyes of mammals, but of the
insect compound eye!"

I wanted to understand this better.
I'm a nonbio major who spent all my spare
time in the past year reading biology books.
So I went to the bookstore and spent three hours
with this book. I found that I didn't have enough background
be able to gain a deeper understanding on the intriguing quotation.
Hopefully I'll be able to handle it after another year of preparation.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful intro to evo-devo
Review: This is a short (about 200 pages)book, but it really is a fantastic introduction to evolutionary developmental biology. I've had an (amateurish) interest in this for awhile, and Carroll et al really clarify basic principles in the field. It is beautifully illustrated...full color diagrams and photos on almost every page. The basic concept is that there is a limited set of genes (the "toolkit") that control development and evolution throughout the animal kingdom. The basic function of these genes--like the hox genes, sonic hedgehog, ubx, and so forth--is clearly explained, and examples of the evolution of their function by changes in their own, and their target genes, cis-regulatory binding sites are shown. In depth coverage is given naturally to the fruit fly, but other insects also, and this is contrasted to the situation in vertebrate development. A real pleasure to read! Anybody with a college course or two in biology should find it comprehensible. I am absolutely positive this field is going to explode in the coming years, and I am certain that this book will be an inspiration for those who will become involved in it. If you're at all interested in the subject of the molecular mechanisms of evolution...don't hesitate to get this book!

Rating:
Summary: Great Book, But...
Review: This is probably the first review of the second edition of From DNA to diversity. The comments of the previous reviewers still apply: this is a relatively short (260 pages) and very clear introduction to Evo-Devo. The book is very well illustrated, with many color photographs and drawings.

The second edition has updated and expanded chapters 4 to 7 and an additional chapter (8). This is a great book, possibly the clearest (but nontrivial) introduction to Evo-Devo available. It is not for total beginners: the audience is probably undergrads and maybe even brilliant high school students that have taken some biology, but it will still be useful to more advanced students.

This is great book: buy it! I will spend the rest of this review griping about shortcomings of the book (Pay no attention!)

While molecular biologists are much better informed about evolution and systematics than they were a few years ago, when they thought that an insect is necessarily intermediate between a "worm" and a vertebrate, they still have some way to go. For instance, in discussing the "Urbilaterian" the authors call it "Bilaterian ancestor", rather than "crown Bilaterian ancestor": the "stem Bilaterian ancestor" was certainly less advanced than what the authors show.

The fanciful picture of little "Ur" is strangely chordate-like, with a dorsal nervous system and a ventral gut (rather than the other way around, as it is the case for most crown Bilaterians, except Deuterostomes). Also the authors don't mention that the Acoelomorpha are possible candidates for the descendants of the last Bilaterians before the Protostome-Deuterostome split. At least some Acoelomorpha have eyes, as the authors predict for "Ur".

Another gripe is the absence of any mention of the "Ecdysozoa" clade hypothesis.

For better information on systematics issues, one should consult books like J. W. Valentine's "Origin of Phyla" or "Assembling the Tree of Life", edited by J. Cracraft and M. J. Donoghue.