Coevolutionary Relationship Definition Essay

  • Alles DL. Using evolution as the framework for teaching biology. American Biol Teacher. 2001;63:20–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Alters BJ, Nelson CE. Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution. 2002;56:1891–901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Andersson SGE, Zomorodipour A, Andersson JO, Sicheritz-Pontén T, Alsmark UCM, Podowski RM, et al. The genome sequence of Rickettsia prowazekii and the origin of mitochondria. Nature. 1998;396:133–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Benkman C. Diversifying coevolution between crossbills and conifers. Evol Educ Outreach. 2010;2: doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0190-8

  • Brockhurst MA. Using microbial microcosms to study host-parasite coevolution. Evol Educ Outreach. 2010;2: doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0188-2

  • Brodie Jr ED. Investigations on the skin toxin of the adult rough-skinned newt, Taricha granulosa. Copeia. 1968;1968:307–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Brodie III ED, Brodie Jr ED. Tetrodotoxin resistance in garter snakes: an evolutionary response of predators to dangerous prey. Evolution. 1990;44:651–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Brodie III ED, Brodie Jr ED. Predator-prey arms races. Bioscience. 1999a;49:557–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Brodie III ED, Brodie Jr ED. The cost of exploiting poisonous prey: tradeoffs in a predator-prey arms race. Evolution. 1999b;53:626–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Brodie Jr ED, Ridenhour BJ, Brodie III ED. The evolutionary response of predators to dangerous prey: hotspots and coldspots in the geographic mosaic of coevolution between newts and snakes. Evolution. 2002;56:2067–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Cavanaugh CM, Gardiner SL, Jones ML, Jannasch HW, Waterbury JB. Prokaryotic cells in the hydrothermal vent tube worm Riftia pachyptila Jones: possible chemoautotrophic symbionts. Science. 1981;213:340–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Hanifin CT, Yotsu-Yamashita M, Yasumoto T, Brodie III ED, Brodie Jr ED. Toxicity of dangerous prey: variation of tetrodotoxin levels within and among populations. J Chem Ecol. 1999;25:2161–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Hanifin CT, Brodie III ED, Brodie Jr ED. A predictive model to estimate total skin tetrodotoxin in the newt Taricha granulosa. Toxicon. 2004;43:243–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Ikeda-Ohtsubo W, Desai M, Stingl U, Brune A. Phylogenetic diversity of ‘Endomicrobia’ and their specific affiliation with termite gut flagellates. Microbiology. 2007;153:3458–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Janzen DH. Coevolution of mutualism between ants and acacias in Central America. Evolution. 1966;20:249–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Lack D. Darwin’s finches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983.Google Scholar

  • Lee JJ, Cevasco M, Médor G. Isolation and characterization of the “zooxanthellae” from soritid foraminifera and the giant clam Tridacna maxima. J Eukaryotic Biol. 2005;52:7s–27s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Martin W. A briefly argued case that mitochondria and plastids are descendants of endosymbionts, but that the nuclear compartment is not. Proc R Soc Lond B. 1999;266:1387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • National Academy of Sciences. Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington: National Academy Press; 1998.Google Scholar

  • Nehm RH, Reilly L. Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience. 2007;57:263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Nilsson LA. Deep flowers for long tongues. TREE. 1998;13:259–60.Google Scholar

  • Schluter D, Price TD, Grant PR. Ecological character displacement in Darwin’s finches. Science. 1985;227:1056–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Tennyson AL. Alfred Lord Tennyson: selected poems. London: The Penguin Group; 2007.Google Scholar

  • Thompson JN. Four central points about coevolution. Evol Educ Outreach. 2010;2: doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0200-x

  • Williams BL, Brodie Jr ED, Brodie III ED. Coevolution of deadly toxins and predator resistance: self-assessment of resistance by garter snakes leads to behavioral rejection of toxic newt prey. Herpetologica. 2003;59:155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  • Abstract

    Human-plant interactions have figured prominently in our species' evolution and they continue to influence the contemporary geographical patterns of human biodiversity. The domestication of particular plant taxa has genetically modified those taxa and intensified human contact with specific plants and their endogenous bioactive allelochemicals (secondary plant compounds). This contact, sustained over multiple generations of humans and plants has provided, on occasion, unique opportunities for amplified interactions of microevolutionary importance. In this paper, a theoretical overview of these interactions is presented and four case studies are detailed as examples of local potentially coevolutionary specificity. The first set of case studies include two human-plant diads: 1) salivary proline-rich proteins and carcinoma in East Asian ethnic groups and ingestion of tea (Camellia sinensis) flavonoids (polyphenols) and 2) HLADQ2+ phenotypes and celiac disease in Northern Atlantic European ethnic groups and ingestion of wheat (Triticum aestivum) A-gliadin peptides. Since established human-plant interactions frequently involve a third species, the second set of case studies includes two human-plant-parasite triads: 1) red blood cell G6PD variants similar to Gdmed and favism in Mediterranean ethnic groups and ingestion of fava bean (Vicia faba) glycosides and exposure to Plasmodium falciparum malaria and 2) HbβS phenotypes and sickle cell anemia in West African ethnic groups and ingestion of cassava (Manihot esculenta) cyanogenic glucosides and exposure to Plasmodium falciparum malaria. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *