If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Evolutionary development: Chicken teeth

Hank introduces us to the relatively new field of evolutionary developmental biology, which compares the developmental processes of different organisms to determine their ancestral relationship, and to discover how those processes evolved. Also fruit flies with eyes on their legs and chickens with teeth! Created by EcoGeek.

Want to join the conversation?

  • leafers tree style avatar for user Brienne.Kennedy789
    When Hank mentioned the eye on the fly's leg, was that eye functional? Was it connected to the brain and capable of sight, or was there no optic nerve whatsoever, and just a non-functioning eye on the leg of the fly?
    (22 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • aqualine ultimate style avatar for user Kusal Uprety
    At, Hank talks about someone called Bill McGinnis, but who is he and what did he do?
    (12 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • aqualine seed style avatar for user Drew
    Is there a feedback system associated with Hox Genes, so that a new instruction is not initiated (turned on) before a prerequisite instruction has been completed?
    (5 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • winston baby style avatar for user Ivana - Science trainee
      Good question.


      What the Hox code represents is a somewhat digital mechanism for regulating axial patterning. By mixing and matching combinations of the expression of a small number of Hox genes, organisms generate a greater range of morphological possibilities.
      Genetic control of body shape is a difficult process to comprehend—but the Hox system is one place in which researchers are getting closer to comprehending this process.

      https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/hox-genes-in-development-the-hox-code-41402/

      Hox expression domains are likely to be determined by at least three distinct regulatory inputs: transcriptional regulation from earlier segmentation genes (Irish et al., 1989); a cellular memory system based on the action of Polycomb (PcG)/trithorax (trxG) group proteins (Denell, 1978; Puro and Nygrén, 1975; Wedeen et al., 1986); and cross-regulatory interactions among the Hox genes themselves.

      During initial stages of development, Hox genes are kept globally silent and become progressively activated during development following a temporal sequence that correlates with the gene’s position within the cluster in a 3′ to 5′ direction.

      The tempo of Hox gene activation is functionally important because experimental conditions resulting in premature or delayed Hox gene activation have been shown to produce phenotypic alterations, even in cases when the final Hox expression patterns are preserved.

      identification of many cis-regulatory elements that control Hox gene transcriptional patterns.
      activity with regards to broad transcriptional patterns of gene activation is largely independent of chromosome structural features that involve chromatin-based regulation.

      long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) could interact with transcription factors and chromatin modifiers to modulate gene function during development.

      In summary, there are mechanisms during development which regulate activity of Hox genes:
      chromatin, active and inactive chromatin associated marks, 3D chromatin conformation, long non-coding RNAs, RNA processing, miRNAs, translational control.



      https://dev.biologists.org/content/140/19/3951
      (2 votes)
  • piceratops sapling style avatar for user Nicholas Swallow
    fanged chickens- scary! But did you know that plain beak can peck through super glue
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • aqualine ultimate style avatar for user d a n i
    If genes can turn on and off, does that mean that we can just turn them on or off to bring back extinct animals?
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • male robot hal style avatar for user kk
    At , Hank said that birds still have genes for teeth even though they don't have teeth from their dinosaur ancestors. Were their dinosaur ancestors like pteranadons?
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • piceratops ultimate style avatar for user sara fowall
    What is a gene?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • aqualine seedling style avatar for user SpinosaurusRex
      A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes, which are made up of DNA, act as instructions to make molecules called proteins. In humans, genes vary in size from a few hundred DNA bases to more than 2 million bases. The Human Genome Project has estimated that humans have between 20,000 and 25,000 genes.
      Every person has two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent. Most genes are the same in all people, but a small number of genes (less than 1 percent of the total) are slightly different between people. Alleles are forms of the same gene with small differences in their sequence of DNA bases. These small differences contribute to each person’s unique physical features.
      (2 votes)
  • leafers ultimate style avatar for user patrickkilgour
    if we can turn genes on and off does that mean we could make a bird revert to its dinosaur origins?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • winston baby style avatar for user Fianna P. McCarty-Snead
    did the eye where the flies back legs were see.because if it could then we could grow another arm.
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • winston baby style avatar for user Ivana - Science trainee
      Hypothetically yes, but that is complicated and requires manipulation at the embryonic stage. It is too late to do it in adults.

      Especially in humans - we are not fruit flies, and to regrow a limb, many tissues and stem cell types are involved. Could it be functional regarding muscle and neural tissue!

      Plus it is unethical to do such experiments on humans so far.
      (1 vote)
  • duskpin tree style avatar for user Matt Tran
    If chickens and other birds had genes that could code for dinosaur-like traits like teeth and scales, could we theoretically recreate dinosaurs from bird embryos just by activating certain Hox genes?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user

Video transcript

- When little kids say they want to grow up to be a scientist, here's what they actually mean. They wanna blow things up in a laboratory setting. They wanna get bitten by a radioactive monkey which will turn them into a terrifying humanoid battle monkey. Or they wanna make a fly with eyeballs on its butt or like a chicken with fangs. Most the time scientists don't get to do that stuff. Like you may blow something up, but it's either gonna be in like a really controlled setting or it will be an accident, in which case it's bad. Like the lab where I first worked, the first lab I ever worked in had a blood stain on the ceiling. But if you're a scientist specializing in the amazing new discipline of evolutionary development biology you may just get to make a fly with eyeballs on its butt or even a chicken with teeth. But not battle monkeys. (upbeat music) So evolutionary developmental biology or evo-devo for all of us cool kids is a new science that looks deep into our genes to figure out how exactly they give instructions to make different parts of our bodies. And as the name suggests, it's giving us some hot leads into the nature and the mechanisms behind evolution. One big thing it's showing us is that animals, all animals are way more similar than we ever imagined. You know how you always hear about how humans and chimps and are 98.6% genetically similar. It kinda makes sense right? 'Cause chimps and humans, you could see that we kinda, kinda look alike. Like if you walked into a coffee shop and there's a chimp sitting in the chair and it's like maybe wearing a fedora or something, you might briefly mistake that chimp for human. You might not even notice it's sittin' there. It could happen. But what about a mouse? You are not going to mistake a mouse for a person. How genetically similar do you think we are with mice? How about 85% similar. - [Male] Shut up. - No I won't shut up. Humans and mice are 85% genetically identical. So why then are mice like little and skittery, covered in white fur and have beady little eyes, while I can like walk upright in a non-skittery way and have beautiful, deep, mysterious eyes? I'll give you the long answer in a minute, but for now, the short answer is, it's all because of the incredibly weird and amazingly powerful genes called developmental regulatory genes. Mostly when we're thinking of genes we think of the things that code for some useful enzyme or protein like the ones that determine what our ankles are going to look like. But those ankle genes don't just come on and off at random. They have to be turned on and off. That's what these developmental regulatory genes do. They activate the genes that put the body parts together. They don't tell them how to do it, mind you, they just tell them when or if it's time to get to work. And since they're the ones pretty much calling the plays, regulatory genes start working rather early in embryonic development. For instance, a kind of a regulatory gene called gap genes are responsible for telling the blastula, that little hollow ball of cells that forms during the early stages development, like a make a mouth here, and let's put an anus over on this other end. Probably the amazing kind of regulatory genes are the homeobox genes or Hox genes which kick into gear after the embryo is more developed. Hox genes literally control the identity of body parts, setting up how an animal's body is organized. Like here's where you put the leg and here's where you put the tail. And like I said, these Hox genes don't give instructions or how to create legs and tails, there are a bunch of other genes that are in charge of the actual craftsmanship of the body parts. You could think of the Hox genes as like the head architects in the construction of a building. They've got the master plan, but they don't do any of the construction themselves, that's way beneath them. Because under this top tier of regulatory genes there are scads of other genes that act as like subcontractors. Like if a Hox gene tells its direct subordinates, make an eye here, the subordinates, then turn around, activate other regulatory genes to give more specific instructions, like this is were we gotta put the collagen for the outer shell of the eyeball. And make some nerve tissue for a retina right here. Again, these second tier genes and third tier and fourth tier and on down the line, don't actually do any of the work, they just send instructions down the chain of command adding more specific information to the instructions as they go. It's a really rigid hierarchy. No gene in your body aside from that very first one does anything until it's told when and how much to do it. So because I know that you're such a, sort of intelligent and curious student, I know what you're wondering right now. What activates that first regulatory gene and how in the name of Bill McGinnis, did they tell each other to do stuff? Well since evo-devo is a relatively new discipline, we don't really know all the stuff that I wish we knew. That's you to figure out when you become a biologist. Scientists are starting to think that a lot of the human genome, that has until recently been considered junk DNA, because it apparently doesn't code for anything might actually be regulatory genes. For instance, just in the past few years, we've learned that humans have about 230 separate Hox genes in our genome and they appear on everyone of our chromosomes, even the sex chromosomes. How regulatory genes are inherited is also still being studied. From what scientists have been able to deduce so far, most regulatory genes are inherited very much the same way as all of your other genes. But for some really early stage regulatory genes the proteins that they're coded to produce called gene products have already been made and are sitting in the egg before it's fertilized, waiting to tell the embryonic cells what to do to get the ball rolling. Another thing that your mom did for you that you probably never her thanked her for. Something that's a really cool thing, even though most regulatory genes are inherited each individual within a species tends to have the exact same DNA sequence in those genes. There aren't even different alleles. And when you think about it, they kinda have to be the same, since all individuals of a species should be built from the same basic blueprint. Like you don't want people walking around with thumbs stickin' outta their heads. Now this gets me back to me and my beady-eyed friend, the mouse. Hox genes and other regulatory genes that are at the very highest tier, the ones that say like head here, and eye here not only tend to be the same within a species, they're also very similar across different animal groups, like between all mammals, or even all vertebrates. The differences between my regulatory genes and a mouse's regulatory genes are way down the chain the chain of commands, where the instructions are the most specific. For the big picture stuff, like you're a vertebrate and you have four limbs and you have hair and breast tissue and ear bones all that stuff that all mammals have, all those general instructions are the same. And that's why 85% of human's genetic makeup is the same as mice, mices, mouse, mice, meeces. (lively ragtime piano music) Okay, you've been very patient my students, so I've got a surprise for you. We're gonna make some butt eyeballs. 1995, in a very cool and also totally messed experiment a team of researchers in Switzerland took a Hox gene from a mouse embryo, one that said, eye goes here, and inserted it into the DNA of a developing fruit fly embryo. But they activated the mouse eyeball gene in a region of the fly that would become the fly's back leg. And so what do you think happened? I'm not gonna tell you yet, 'cause I want you to guess. Wrong, the fruit fly did not grow a mouse eyeball next to it's back leg, it grew a fruit fly eye next to it's back leg. Remember, the gene didn't say how to make an eye, it just gave the instruction to make an eye. If it had said how to make the eye, you'd get a mouse eye on the fruit fly's butt. Instead it told the fruit fly cells make an eye here and those fruit fly cells had their own instructions regulated by another whole set of regulatory genes and once they got the order to make the eye they made the only way they knew how. That is pretty fricken messed up, but also fricken awesome. Now in addition to getting me in touch with my inner mentally unstable child scientist, this kind of experiment is where evo-devo has begun to really revolutionize our understanding of evolution. Because we've known that evolution can take place over a really long time but we haven't really be able to figure out how it sometimes happens really fast. Traditionally one of the main ways that scientists have explained evolution is through genetic mutations. But an organism would have to do a lot of mutating, to evolve from say a dinosaur into a bird. It used to be thought that that a 50% change in form would require a 50% mutation in genes, which would take a long time, way longer than the pace at which we see things actually evolving. But it turns out that a small change in a regulatory gene up at the top of the chain of command can have huge effects on how an organism is actually assembled. To understand how this works, let's look at why birds don't have teeth. So birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs which are just these fricken sweet dinosaurs like velociraptors, which look a lot like birds, but you know way more awesome and with big razor sharp teeth. But you may have noticed that birds don't have razor sharp teeth, they have beaks. Under the old way of thinking about evolution the loss of the teeth would have had to happen very slowly as the genes make enamel and dentin gradually mutated to make less and less and less of each of those things until they made none at all. And for a long time, that's just how we thought dinosaurs evolved into birds. But there was one problem, it would have taken way longer for all of those mutations to occur that it actually took for dinosaurs to evolve into birds based on the fossil record. Fortunately evo-devo is offering us an explanation. A single mutation in the regulatory genes could have shut off the enamel and dentin production and another mutation in another regulatory gene could have upped the keratin production from the level of make some scales, to the level of make a beak. So birds actually do still have genes for teeth from their dinosaurian ancestors, they're just not expressed because the regulators don't turn them on. But how do we know that? Well, in 2006, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin named John Fallon who studies birth defects was lookin' at some mutant chicken embryos and noticed that the had formed little teeth, like little baby reptile teeth. It turns out that the mutations affected the chicken's gene regulation allowing the teeth, a feature lost to birds around 60 million years ago, to just pop back up again. The same sort of crazy throwback features have been observed in snakes born with legs like their ancestors once had or blind cave fish suddenly born with eyes. If you turn those genes back on, those ancient repressed features come back. It's crazy, I know. That's so cool. I don't (mumbling) it's all fairly new science so this is still like in my head just like really fantasinating. That's word I made up.