Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Evolution of the mammalian vagina

Echoed on the Panda's Thumb
pussy hox

Q: What unique organ is found only in mammals, but not in fish, amphibians, reptiles, or birds?

The title and that little picture to the left ought to be hint enough, but if not, read on.

A: The vagina. Aren't we lucky?

There's an old joke going around about poor design: what kind of designer would route the sewer pipes right through the center of the entertainment center? It's a good point. It doesn't make sense from a design standpoint to have our reproductive and excretory systems so intimately intermingled, but it does make a heck of a lot of sense from a purely historical point of view. In a sense, reproduction is an excretory function—we are shedding gametes produced internally, and we already have a perfectly good set of pipes running from our insides to the outside, so why not use them? It's just that in our lineage, which has specialized in giving great care to our gametes and zygotes, that plumbing has become increasingly elaborate, and that part of the system that was once just a convenient throughway has become a destination and a long-term residence in its own right.

Development tells us part of the story. The reproductive and urinary tracts are all tangled together in early development, arising together from two pairs of ducts, the Müllerian and Wolffian ducts, which are modified in complex ways to form a series of kidneys (we keep only the last one, the metanephros), one set of pathways for the male testes, and yet another set for the female ovaries.

In non-therian mammals, all of these complicated pipes have one common destination, a single outlet to the external world: the cloaca. "Cloaca" is Latin for sewer, and it is appropriately named. The terminus of the large intestine is here, as well as the ends of the ureters from the kidneys and the ducts from the ovaries or testes. Everything gets dumped in to the cavity of the cloaca, making a nice stew of feces, urine, and sperm or eggs. Mmm-mmm. The cloaca is the grey cylinder at the bottom of figure A, below, in the first three organisms, amphibians, birds/reptiles, and monotremes (my apologies for the murkiness of the image; it's the best copy I have).

pussy hox
Evolution of the tetrapod reproductive system. (A) Female urogenital system from major tetrapod lineages. Inf, infundibulum; Ov, ovary; Ovd, oviduct; Ut, uterus (or shell-producing region in non-therian animals); Vg, vagina; Kd, kidney; Ud, urinary duct; Rc, rectum; Ub, urinary bladder; Cl, cloaca. (B) Tetrapod egg. *, the shell coat of birds and some reptiles is highly calcified. MPS, marsupial-specific mucopolysaccharide layer. (C) Tetrapod phylogeny showing major transitions in mammalian reproduction. Divergence of amphibians and amniotes (A). Divergence of birds/reptiles and mammals (B). Divergence of monotremes and therians (C). Divergence of marsupials and placentals (D).

The fundamental organization of the reproductive part of the vertebrate urogenital tract is straightforward: it's a tube with a funnel at one end that captures eggs released by the ovary, and conducts them to an external orifice. Along the way, cells lining the tube secrete useful products like albumin and yolk, and deposit a shell, and may act to temporarily store the egg before its final release.

Marsupial and placental mammals have dispensed with most of those functions, and expanded on others. One part of the oviduct has acquired a richly vascularized epithelium and specializations for investing and nurturing a resident embryo, becoming a uterus. That's an amazing and innovative function in itself, but in addition, it has formed a new, separate channel, the vagina. The vagina is an entirely new structure, which has no homolog in amphibians or reptiles.

That is an interesting observation. It's a wholly original structure that arose sometime after the monotreme-marsupial split, an evolutionary novelty. How did that happen? How can we study a unique event that occurred over 150 million years ago?

pussy hox
Evolutionary tree showing placement of the three groups of living mammals (colored boxes and icons at top) with respect to selected Mesozoic taxa. Branching times for the black tree are based on the earliest known fossil occurrences of taxa (black dots).The red tree is based on molecular divergence times for monotremes-therians and eutherians- metatherians.

Wagner and Lynch have a proposal to answer both questions. The general mechanism for generating novel structures is evo-devo orthodoxy:

  1. An epigenetic side effect of other evolutionary changes in the body leading to a novel physical structure in the organisms.
  2. The genetic consolidation and individuation of the novel structure.

(Note that this proposes phenotype before genotype, which is somewhat heretical for neodarwinism. It shouldn't trouble the evo-devo gang in the slightest, of course.)

How to study such a process from the past?

The basic assumption of a molecular evolutionary approach to the study of evolutionary novelties is that changes in developmental regulation have left traces in the molecular structure of the genome and a comparative study of genomic structures should be able to identify genetic changes coincidental with a phenotypic novelty. (emphasis mine)

That process of consolidation and individuation would have left detectable scars in the genome—the genes involved would have acquired changes necessary to fix the phenotype in the population. Again, as we'd expect from the evo-devo perspective, those changes would have been made to the regulatory genes that control tissue-specific gene expression. What genes should we examine? Let's look at the therian organs of interest, and here are some likely candidates: the HoxA genes that have region-specific domains in the female reproductive tract.

pussy hox
Hox gene expression pattern and the evolution of the female reproductive tract. (a) HoxA-13 to HoxA-9 are located at the 5' end of the HoxA cluster and are expressed in the same regions in the adult as in the embryo: HoxA-13 (green), HoxA-11 (yellow), HoxA-10 (orange) and HoxA-9 (blue). (b) Tetrapod phylogeny showing representative female reproductive systems from each group (amphibian ovaries shown only on the left).
pussy hox
Phylogenetic relationships among a small set of vertebrate species including representatives of the major mammalian clades: monotremes (platypus), marsupials (opposum) and placentals (Hyrax and human). Above some branches the estimated number of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions of HoxA-11. The estimates are obtained from a maximum likelihood codon model as implemented in PAML. Note that in the stem lineages of therians (i.e., the lineage leading to the most recent common ancestor of opossum and the placentals), there are five to six non-synonymous substitutions but no synonymous substitution. This indicates a very strong selection coincidental with the evolution of the internal developmental mode of mammals.

The HoxA-9 through HoxA-13 genes are expressed in order along the length of the embryonic Müllerian duct, and also continue to be expressed in adulthood; so the cells of the vagina are all expressing HoxA-13, while the cells of the cervix all have HoxA-11 turned on (for some reason, I find that to be a wonderful piece of knowledge, and I just have to say…Hooray for HoxA-13! It has just become my favorite Hox gene.)

So the question is whether there is any evidence that these particular Hox genes have signs of any set of changes that are associated with particular transitions in vertebrate evolution—in particular, are there differences that can be traced to the transition between monotremes and the theria, and between the placentals and marsupials. The answer seems to be yes: the diagram to the right is a measure of the number of synonymous to nonsynonymous changes in HoxA-11, which is an indicator of the selective pressures that have shaped the gene.

Furthermore, they've identified where these changes have occurred, and they are not in the homeodomain (the part of the protein that binds to specific sequences in the DNA, but in the amino terminal end.

pussy hox
Approximate positions of the amino acids positions of HoxA-11 which are under directional selection between the most recent common ancestor of all extant mammals and the most recent common ancestor of placentals. Note that all of these substitutions are N-terminal of the homeodomain and affect small clusters of amino acids.

The 3-D models below show where the relevant amino acids (in yellow) end up in the folded protein. The interesting thing here is that regulatory proteins don't just interact with each other, but also with other regulatory proteins that are simultaneously binding. It's a whole chain of interactions—regulatory proteins binding to the DNA, and also binding between each other in a complex called the enhancersome—that determines the level of expression of a particular gene.

pussy hox
HoxA-11 protein structure. This three-dimensional protein model was calculated by comparative modeling as part of the MODBASE project. (A) Model shown as ribbons. (B) Model rendered with a molecular surface. The DNA-binding homeodomain is shown in red. The carboxy-terminal region of exon 2 is shown in blue. Residues identified as being under directional (positive) selection in the stem lineage of eutherians are shown in yellow. Residues replaced in the stem lineage of therians but not identified under selection are shown in green. Note that all of these amino acid sites affect amino acids that are predicted to be placed on the surface of the molecule as expected if selection is driven by novel protein-protein interactions.

There is a great deal left to be done. Hox genes are rather high up the chain of regulatory genes, so there are many more genes downstream that have to be puzzled out. We also are a long ways from figuring out how these patterns of gene expression define the morphogenetic processes that create this lovely novel structure, the vagina. The important thing, though, is that there are these questions waiting to be answered—the investigators have a research program.

We propose that a research program to explain evolutionary novelties has to focus on the question of whether novel characters arise through the evolution of novel regulatory links among developmental genes. We further propose that a detailed analysis of the evolution of developmental genes involved in the development of a derived, novel character can reveal molecular changes that could be causally involved in the origin of evolutionary novelties. The case study presented here suggests that the statistical methods of molecular evolution are strong enough to provide specific hypothesis for experimental test. The success of this research program will depend on the ability to connect the patterns of molecular evolution with the functional role of these molecular changes.

That's the cool thing about evolutionary biology: exciting questions, titillating ancestors, and the promise of tools to answer more.


Lynch VJ, Roth JJ, Takahashi K, Dunn CW, Nonaka DF, Stopper GF, Wagner GP (2004) Adaptive evolution of HoxA-11 and HoxA-13 at the origin of the uterus in mammals. Proc Biol Sci. 271(1554):2201-7.

Wagner GP, Lynch VJ (2005) Molecular evolution of evolutionary novelties: the vagina and uterus of therian mammals. J Exp Zoolog B Mol Dev Evol. [Epub ahead of print]

Cifelli RL, Davis BM (2003) Marsupial Origins. Science 302:1899-1900.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3287/WKLL6PH8/

Comments:
Trackback: You Won't Find This In Albertsons Tracked on: Modulator (63.247.135.223) at 2005 11 02 09:19:08
Yep, Albertsons is not very interested in biological sciences. Especially when it has anything to do with female anatomy. However, PZ Myers makes up for Albertsons' failings by providing Evolution of the Mammalian Vagina....



#46687: — 11/02  at  09:50 AM
Hmmm.........

If the avian cloaca is both an excretory and reproductive organ, then doesn't that mean any time birds have sex, it's automatically sodomy?

I'll be buggered - that penguin movie really was out to destroy Western civilization! wink



#46693: — 11/02  at  10:06 AM
Excellent post PZ.

Whats sad is the comment in 46641 is so obviously close minded. Here is presented a solid bit of science but instead of learn something this poster clings to a ideology. I jumped over to his 'blog' and read more illogical mish/mash than any one human should be able to stand for a day.


It really makes one sad.:-(



#46706: Kevin Wirth — 11/02  at  10:47 AM
Frank,

"on their own the results PZ described are very strong evidence for evolution, and this is just a tiny speck of the total evidence supporting evolution. There is absolutely no reason why any of the above relationships should exist if evolution if false, except if God is just screwing with us. "

You know, it's just udderly (sic) amazing to me how imagination runs wild when it comes to building on evolutionary presuppositions. I mean, heck, the speculations are ENDLESS from Darwinists when it comes to imagining how this or that critter or organ 'might have' evolved. But when it comes to alternative types of speculations, these are verboten, not possible, not scientific, etc. etc.

To respond to your question about MY research program...

1) I don't have another 'research program' for the origin of the vagina because my speculation is that it didn't evolve. As for understanding the relationships of these organs, I have nothing to say except, why doesn't someone put on - just for the heck of it - the ID hat and try to speculate on the notion that it was designed.

We already know right off the bat that PZ thinks it's all a very "poor design".

"what kind of designer would route the sewer pipes right through the center of the entertainment center? It's a good point. "

So his bias clearly shows us that he is PREDISPOSED against this notion at the get go.

How scientific is THAT?

As for PZ presenting "very strong evidence for evolution", no, he most certainly has not done that. And to say so totally misunderstands the nature of evidence contrasted with speculation.

PZ has offered us some (as I called it) "spectacular speculations". That's NOT the same as EVIDENCE, anymore than a story about an alleged evolutionary pathway is the same as the HISTORY of what actually happened (another fantastic technique PZ has utilized elsewhere).

That's one the key faults of Darwinism - that you guys call speculations 'evidence' and even 'facts' as conveniently as I butter my toast in the morning.

Hey - speculation is good and a necessary part of any scientific reserach program. But let's make sure we keep our important distinctions. PZ hasn't offered us ANY evidence here - he has simply shown us how creative he is.

There's a HUGE difference.



#46709: Kevin Wirth — 11/02  at  10:59 AM
Patrick,

What if there was NO morphogenetic process at work here?

Er, what? Do you mean, what if the interaction of proteins created from the body's genes don't give rise to the vagina?


No. What I mean is, what if there are too many 'impossible' evolutionary hurdles to overcome? It's EASY to speculate endlessly ad infinitum only about evolutionary success, because it's assumed. If you can ONLY imagine evolutionary success for everything, and not come up with evolutionary impossisiblites, then are you really examining this issue as you should be?

I would say 'no', because anyone can imagine whatever they want to in accord with evolution. But unless and until you start thinking about why the vagina (or any other organ) could NOT have evolved, then you will never really come to grips with the true challenges on this or any other evolutionary issue.



#46711: Kevin Wirth — 11/02  at  11:09 AM
Frank,

"There is absolutely no reason why any of the above relationships should exist if evolution if false, except if God is just screwing with us."

Then I say, you're not imagining hard enough. AND, you're biased in that you are willing to expend a ton of energy imagining how evolutionary pathways 'might have' been generated, but you say you can't even BEGIN to imagine how the vagina might be 'designed' - unless God is messing with your mind?

My My. You give up so easily when it suits you.



#46715: — 11/02  at  11:19 AM
Then I say, you're not imagining hard enough. AND, you're biased in that you are willing to expend a ton of energy imagining how evolutionary pathways 'might have' been generated, but you say you can't even BEGIN to imagine how the vagina might be 'designed' - unless God is messing with your mind?

My My. You give up so easily when it suits you.

Let me see. You look at a part of human anatomy. Golly, it sure looks real complicated. So you (by your own admission) do not bother to speculate how it could have evolved, since you assume it couldn't have. You just slap a big "GodDesigner Did It" sticker on it, and bitch about everyone who hasn't 'solved' the problem the same way as you. And you accuse others of 'giving up'?

If you're turned off by the 'wild speculations' of people doing real evolutionary work, I would submit that one of ID's problems is that it has no speculation. No theory. None. All it has is "Evolution bad, it's all designed." It's a joke that's set up to always have the same punchline.

Try doing some real research. Whining about evil scientists isn't getting you anywhere.



#46728: — 11/02  at  12:01 PM
As for understanding the relationships of these organs, I have nothing to say except, why doesn't someone put on - just for the heck of it - the ID hat and try to speculate on the notion that it was designed.

Okay, Kevin- just for the heck of it, I'll put on the ID hat. It probably won't hurt much, since I'm not a scientist. Here goes-
Ow! My brain has no room!
Hey, it's not so bad anymore. I'm a real ID researcher now! Let's have at those questions:
The weewee? Designed. The peepee? Designed. The scientist? Designed. The creationist? Likewise. The Designer? Don't ask- it's a
mystery.
Wow, this is real easy! I don't know why more scientists don't toss aside their silly books 'n' labs 'n' thinking caps, and join the fun!

Uh, no thanks- you can have your hat back, Kevin...



#46729: — 11/02  at  12:01 PM
I'm going to assume that Mr. Worth is a single male. Every woman, and every man who has lived with a woman, gets a reminder that the vagina and uterus were clearly not "intelligently designed" about once a month.

Also, leaving aside the issue of routing the plumbing through the entertainment center, what kind of "designer" puts the light switch on the outside of the room?



#46736: — 11/02  at  12:22 PM
PZ said: "what kind of designer would route the sewer pipes right through the center of the entertainment center? It's a good point."

Kevin Wirth responded

So his bias clearly shows us that he is PREDISPOSED against this notion at the get go...How scientific is THAT?


There's no evidence of "pre"-disposal in PZ's statement. He has considered the possibility of design and found what he considers to be evidence against it.

Maybe his premises are faulty, but the logical form of the argument is standard Modus Tollens: If designed, then poo and pee hole(s) separate from baby hole. Poo and pee hole(s) not separate from baby hole. Therefore, not designed.

KW: As for PZ presenting "very strong evidence for evolution", no, he most certainly has not done that. And to say so totally misunderstands the nature of evidence contrasted with speculation.

As you point out, speculation is necessary, but you seem to include a lot more under the speculation umbrella than you should.

Again, the premises may or may not be faulty, but the researchers reason that, if consolidation and individuation, then then the genome should show it. The genome shows it. Therefore, consolidation and individuation are a reasonable explanation.

As many have noted, this isn't exactly the most solid ground to be standing on. If the researchers reach the conclusion that 'therefore, consolidation and individuation are the true cause of the evolution of the vagina,' then, technically, they have committed the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Anyone with a modicum of flexibility in their thought can take this as an explanation, compare it to other candidate explanations, and make up their mind about how good an explanation it is. It seems to me to be a rather good one, as it fits the data nicely; is consistent with the rest of evolutionary biology, which is strongly supported by loads of evidence independent of this particular study; it is more or less directly testable; etc...

If you can spell out how an ID "explanation" is better in any scientifically or philosophically relevant respect (nevermind doing so for the majority or all such respects), please do so. Otherwise, you'd do better to keep your simpleminded objections to yourself.



#46746: ekzept — 11/02  at  12:52 PM
What's next?...the evolutionary theories of female orgasm ...
well, PZ has already treated the orgasm in the human female from an evolutionary perspective. i'm too short on time to look it up, but it's around here somewhere and i'm sure it can be readily found by using the search function creatively.



#46749: ekzept — 11/02  at  12:56 PM
So his bias clearly shows us that he is PREDISPOSED against this notion at the get go.

How scientific is THAT?
evolution and morphegensis have been proved by overwhelming evidence for other organisms, organs, and systems. the only way it needs to be re-substantiated here is under the assumption that, for some odd reason, the rest of the human body was subject to evolution and the uterus and vagina weren't. that's not reasonable.

it's just as unreasonable to argue all other organisms evolved except humans, who were specially created. alas, i've seen that somewhere in the creationist bag of bad ideas, too.



's avatar #46752: PZ Myers — 11/02  at  01:00 PM
Here, here, and here, for instance.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#46754: — 11/02  at  01:02 PM
Kevin said:

What if there was NO morphogenetic process at work here?

The article said:

We also are a long ways from figuring out how these patterns of gene expression define the morphogenetic processes that create this lovely novel structure, the vagina.

Given the context about Hox genes and gene expression, I'm pretty sure the morphogenetic processes that sentence is talking about are the processes that give rise to a vagina in a gestating mammal, not the processes that caused the vagina to evolve in the first place. In other words, your question is basically asking "What if the vagina does not develop during gestation from the proteins created from gene expression?" Perhaps you're implying that God poofs vaginas right into fetuses. Will that be the next target of creationists? First evolution, and then developmental biology? Are Hox genes the work of Satan?

But, hey, man, keep going on that reading comprehension thing. It's good to have something to strive for.



#46763: — 11/02  at  01:23 PM
noahpoah: If you can spell out how an ID "explanation" is better in any scientifically or philosophically relevant respect (nevermind doing so for the majority or all such respects), please do so

Well, "poof" is pretty succinct, you must admit ;) Also, at only four letters to evolution's nine, we should obviously accept it under Occam's Razor as the simpler explanation :D

Kevin, if you want to argue that evolution is incorrect, I'd like to see you take a stab at the plagiarised errors found in DNA http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ .

As an example, care to take any guesses as to why primates and humans share the same pseudogene meaning that mean we can't produce Vitamin C? We certainly need it to live, so our inability to synthesise it is a little crappy, especially considering that most other species can do it. Why do we have this broken gene, and why is it so incredibly similar to the one found in primates?

If I'm not thinking hard enough, limited as my imagination and intelligence obviously are, then why not illuminate us about your theories as to this unusual design?

In fact...

Puts ID Small Pointy Hat On
As a Creationist/IDiot, I hypothesise that God made these genes dysfunctional

a) so that Eve would eventually be tempted to eat the Apple (which contains a passable amount of ascorbic acid). On the other hand, why would He put in a broken gene rather than just not inserting one at all?

b) because it was a fitting punishment to condemn post-Adam/Eve humans to eat fruit to remind them of what they had done. He also did it to primates because they looked annoyingly similar to humans, a fact he hadn't realised until he compared the two after production.

c) because it's a fact, and I know God did it, so he must have done. I've no idea why or how, though, and have not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is the case.

I'd go with b) as the better hypothesis, personally: it explains the broken gene quite effectively. If it ever gets into AiG, I want full credit.

Now, to gather `evidence' for this I'm going to wander off and read the Bible *toddles off*

My My. You give up so easily when it suits you.
And you don't even try at all, I fear.



#46764: — 11/02  at  01:24 PM
Kevin wirth
'Then I say, you're not imagining hard enough'

and then

', it's just udderly (sic) amazing to me how imagination runs wild when it comes to building on evolutionary presuppositions'

Hmmm, a conflicted human being. Science makes use of imagination also, it calls it thinking about what is real and how it came to be that way. It doesn't stop at 'ID did it' and take a nap. Why? because ID did it is not an answer.

ID did it can easily be substituted for anything, FSM, Santa, etc. We don't have that avenue in legitimate science.



#46779: — 11/02  at  02:08 PM
Well, "poof" is pretty succinct, you must admit ;) Also, at only four letters to evolution's nine, we should obviously accept it under Occam's Razor as the simpler explanation :D

That's nothing. I have a much better explanation: I am God. I created the universe and everything in it, and then in the summer of 1983 I incarnated myself as a human for reasons I don't remember, and lost all my omniscience and omnipotence. My evidence for this? The sound I made while creating the universe was not "poof", but "zap", making my explanation one letter more parsimonious than yours.

You're all just lucky I'm so easy to worship for. Books is all I ask, really. Wild Cherry Pepsi wouldn't hurt, either. And money is always appreciated.



#46782: Via — 11/02  at  02:23 PM
Does the female pirate experience an orgasm or an arrrrghhhasm?



#46784: — 11/02  at  02:32 PM
I find this article inappropriate.



#46788: — 11/02  at  03:07 PM
Oh oracles of biological wisdom, my mammalian-reproduction-related question is this: in the words of MoDo's paraphrase of Thurber, Are Men Necessary? Surely in some limited way, the answer is No: if men were reduced to their male-gamete-carrying essence, then sexual reproduction with all its advantages would still happen, but there would be more resources available for women and children. There are species with sexual dimorphism of this kind, but the vague question is, why doesn't this happen all the time, or more often, or with people?



Trackback: Distaff Tracked on: Frothing at the Mouth (151.204.192.10) at 2005 11 02 15:13:21
For my distaff readers: The origin of the vagina, which is unique to mammals and found in no other vertebrate (they make do with a cloaca; you never have to worry about wiping front to back with a cloaca)....



's avatar #46795: — 11/02  at  03:58 PM
" I find this article inappropriate."

What a bad and empty sentiment to put on a biology blog!

My take is that PZ describes something that is readily available for my amateur study and that I can really get into. grin



#46798: — 11/02  at  04:09 PM
" I find this article inappropriate."


What a bad and empty sentiment to put on a biology blog!

Um, I think he was making a joke. It was an allusion to the Albertson's market chain pulling that issue of Seventeen with the article about women's, uh, plumbing.



#46808: Kyle — 11/02  at  04:50 PM
Fantastic post!



#46814: Joel — 11/02  at  05:23 PM
Now you've done it. You won't be able to publish this blog at Albertsons.



Page 2 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

Next entry: The knitting conspiracy

Previous entry: Open Thread

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college