The polarisation of the embryonic anteroposterior (AP) axis requires the establishment of positional cues with spatial information, and often involves complex intercellular communications, cell adhesion and cell movement. Recent work on several fronts has begun to shed light on how the initial asymmetries are established and maintained. In this review, I discuss the polarisation of the AP axis during Drosophila oogenesis, focusing on the function of the Notch signalling pathway and its relationship to the activation of the epidermal growth factor (...) receptor. I make special reference to some aspects of Notch activity regulation during oogenesis that appear to depart from the canonical pathway. Finally, I hypothesise on possible similarities between these activities of Notch signalling during Drosophila oogenesis and vertebrate somitogenesis. BioEssays 25:781–791, 2003. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

Multicellular organisms develop on a predictable schedule that depends on both cell‐intrinsic timers and sequential cell‐cell interactions mediated by extracellular signals. The interplay between intracellular timers and extracellular signals is well illustrated by the development of oligodendrocytes, the cells that make the myelin in the vertebrate central nervous system. An intrinsic timing mechanism operates in each oligodendrocyte precursor cell to limit the length of time the cell divides before terminally differentiating. This mechanism consists of two components, a timing component, which (...) depends on the mitogen platelet‐derived growth factor (PDGF) and measures elapsed time, and an effector component, which depends on thyroid hormone and stops cell division and initiates differentiation at the appropriate time. The cell‐cycle inhibitor p27/Kip1 accumulates in the precursor cells as they proliferate and is part of both components of the timer. It seems likely that similar timing mechanisms operate in other cell lineages. BioEssays 22:64–71, 2000. ©2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (shrink)

Explanation in terms of gene regulatory networks has become standard practice in evolutionary developmental biology. In this paper, we argue that GRNs fail to provide a robust, mechanistic, and dynamic understanding of the developmental processes underlying the genotype–phenotype map. Explanations based on GRNs are limited by three main problems: the problem of genetic determinism, the problem of correspondence between network structure and function, and the problem of diachronicity, as in the unfolding of causal interactions over time. Overcoming these problems requires (...) dynamic mechanistic explanations, which rely not only on mechanistic decomposition, but also on dynamic modeling to reconstitute the causal chain of events underlying the process of development. We illustrate the power and potential of this type of explanation with a number of biological case studies that integrate empirical investigations with mathematical modeling and analysis. We conclude with general considerations on the relation between mechanism and process in evo-devo. (shrink)

1. A Historical Look at Unity 2. Field Guide to Modern Concepts of Reduction and Unity 3. Kitcher's Revisionist Account of Unification 4. Critics of Unity 5. Integration Instead of Unity 6. Reduction via Mechanisms 7. Case Studies in Reduction and Unification across the Disciplines.