Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content
Figure 6 | EvoDevo

Figure 6

From: Gene expression suggests conserved aspects of Hox gene regulation in arthropods and provides additional support for monophyletic Myriapoda

Figure 6

Hypothetical interference of aUbx and Ubx/Antp transcription with Ubx and Antp expression. (A) Inversion model explaining complementary expression patterns of Ubx and aUbx based on the hypothetical conservation of bxd/aUbx promoters. In a hypothetical ancestor of myriapods, bxd/aUbx and Ubx must be inverted (inversion_1) (indicated by question mark). A second inversion must have transferred Ubx back onto the leading strand. (B) De novo evolution of bxd-like aUbx promoter on the complementary strand upstream of Ubx. (C) Inferred negative interference of bicistronic transcription on Antp expression. If Ubx/Antp does not code for UBX protein, its expression may also repress monocistronic (translated) Ubx in Glomeris. Promoters and direction of transcription are indicated by arrows; genes are represented by shaded bars; crossbars indicate for the split Hox cluster in Drosophila; relevant transcripts are highlighted by coloured bars. Blue T-bars indicate suggested repressor function. Question marks indicate hypothetical functions/facts. Light shading indicates areas involved in inversion events.

Back to article page

EvoDevo

ISSN: 2041-9139