title: Wing vein patterns of the Hemiptera insect Orosanga japonicus differ among individuals.
abstract: Although Turing's reaction-diffusion model (RD model) has been gradually accepted among biologists, application of the model is still limited. Accumulated experimental studies have shown that the morphogen gradient model can explain most patterning phenomena in embryogenesis. These experiments have been performed only in a few model animals. Therefore, it is not clear whether the discovered principle of the mechanism is generally applicable. The wing venation pattern of Drosophila melanogaster is largely determined by the morphogen gradient mechanism. We found that the gradient model cannot be applied to some other species. In the Hemiptera insect Orosanga japonicus, each individual has a unique pattern. Veins of O. japonicus extend radially from the proximal region and bifurcate to add the veins in the distal region. Interestingly, the bifurcation points are almost random and the vein number at the wing edge differs with wing size. However, the spacing between the veins is maintained evenly. Computer simulation of the RD model showed these properties do not fit the morphogen gradient model, but perfectly fit the RD model. This result suggests that the RD model may explain phenomena to which the morphogen gradient mechanism is currently believed to apply.
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Pattern Formation, Graduate School of Frontier Biosciences , Osaka University , 1-3 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871 , Japan.
authors.forename: Eiichi
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Yoshimoto
authors.forename: Shigeru
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kondo
keywords: Turing pattern; insect venation pattern; reaction–diffusion model; simulation
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1981 Oct 7;295(1078):473-96
references.pmid: 6117906
references.citation: Heredity (Edinb). 2009 Jun;102(6):563-72
references.pmid: 19277055
references.citation: Science. 2006 Dec 1;314(5804):1397-8
references.pmid: 17138885
references.citation: J Math Biol. 1983;17(1):125-9
references.pmid: 6875405
references.citation: Development. 1988 Sep;104(1):105-13
references.pmid: 3253052
references.citation: Annu Rev Genet. 1992;26:277-304
references.pmid: 1482114
references.citation: Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1980 Jun 24;208(1171):243-64
references.pmid: 6105656
references.citation: Science. 2010 Sep 24;329(5999):1616-20
references.pmid: 20929839
references.citation: Mol Syst Biol. 2009;5:278
references.pmid: 19536201
references.citation: Bull Math Biol. 1991;53(5):701-19
references.pmid: 1933036
references.citation: Kybernetik. 1972 Dec;12(1):30-9
references.pmid: 4663624
references.citation: Nature. 1995 Aug 31;376(6543):765-8
references.pmid: 24547605
references.citation: Curr Biol. 1994 Sep 1;4(9):811-4
references.pmid: 7865024
references.citation: Bioessays. 2000 Aug;22(8):753-60
references.pmid: 10918306
references.citation: Bull Math Biol. 1990;52(1-2):153-97; discussion 119-52
references.pmid: 2185858
references.citation: J Biochem. 2003 Nov;134(5):625-30
references.pmid: 14688226
references.citation: Dev Biol. 1998 Apr 1;196(1):11-23
references.pmid: 9527877
references.citation: Int J Dev Biol. 2003;47(7-8):653-63
references.pmid: 14756341
references.citation: Genetica. 1999;105(2):203-10
references.pmid: 10568261
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 May 26;106(21):8429-34
references.pmid: 19433782
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2002 Feb 21;214(4):549-61
references.pmid: 11851367