Morphogenetic field

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the concept in developmental biology. For Rupert Sheldrake's concept of morphic fields, see the bibliography in his article.
A.G.Gurwitsch analysed the embryonic development of the sea-urchin as a vector-field, as if the proliferation of cells into organs were brought about by putative external forces.

In developmental biology, a morphogenetic field is a group of cells able to respond to discrete, localized biochemical signals leading to the development of specific morphological structures or organs.[1][2] The spatial and temporal extent of the embryonic fields are dynamic, and within the field is a collection of interacting cells out of which a particular organ is formed.[3] As a group, the cells within a given morphogenetic field are constrained: thus, cells in a limb field will become a limb tissue, those in a cardiac field will become heart tissue.[4] However, specific cellular programming of individual cells in a field is flexible: an individual cell in a cardiac field can be redirected via cell-to-cell signaling to replace specific damaged or missing cells.[4] Imaginal discs in insect larvae are examples of morphogenetic fields.[5]

Historical development

The concept of the morphogenetic field, fundamental in the early twentieth century to the study of embryological development, was first introduced in 1910 by Alexander G. Gurwitsch.[6] Experimental support was provided by Ross Granville Harrison's experiments transplanting fragments of a newt embryo into different locations.[7]

Harrison was able to identify "fields" of cells producing organs such as limbs, tail and gills and to show that these fields could be fragmented or have undifferentiated cells added and a complete normal final structure would still result. It was thus considered that it was the "field" of cells, rather than individual cells, that were patterned for subsequent development of particular organs. The field concept was developed further by Harrison's friend Hans Spemann, and then by Paul Weiss and others.[3] The concept was similar to the meaning of the term entelechy of vitalists like Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch (1867-1941).

By the 1930s, however, the work of geneticists, especially Thomas Hunt Morgan, revealed the importance of chromosomes and genes for controlling development, and the rise of the new synthesis in evolutionary biology lessened the perceived importance of the field hypothesis. Morgan was a particularly harsh critic of fields since the gene and the field were perceived as competitors for recognition as the basic unit of ontogeny.[3] With the discovery and mapping of master control genes, such as the homeobox genes the pre-eminence of genes seemed assured. But in the late twentieth century the field concept was "rediscovered" as a useful part of developmental biology. It was found, for example, that different mutations could cause the same malformations, suggesting that the mutations were affecting a complex of structures as a unit, a unit that might correspond to the field of early 20th century embryology.

Scott Gilbert proposes that the morphogenetic field is a middle ground between genes and evolution.[3] That is, genes act upon fields, which then act upon the developing organism.[3] Jessica Bolker describes morphogenetic fields not merely as incipient structures or organs, but as dynamic entities with their own localized development processes, which are central to the emerging field of evolutionary development ("evo-devo").[8] Rupert Sheldrake enlarged the concept into a social reality: the morphic resonance.[9]


  1. Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2002). Universal Mechanisms of Animal Development. in: Molecular Biology of the Cell (4th ed.). Garland. ISBN 0-8153-3218-1. 
  2. Jacobson AG, Sater AK (1 November 1988). "Features of embryonic induction". Development. 104 (3): 341–59. PMID 3076860. 
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA (1996). "Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology". Dev. Biol. 173 (2): 357–72. PMID 8605997. doi:10.1006/dbio.1996.0032. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 Gilbert SF (2003). Developmental biology (7th ed.). Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer Associates. pp. 65–6. ISBN 0-87893-258-5. 
  5. Alberts B, et al. (2002). Organogenesis and the Patterning of Appendages. in: Molecular Biology of the Cell (4th ed.). Garland. ISBN 0-8153-3218-1. 
  6. Beloussov, LV (1997). "Life of Alexander G. Gurwitsch and his relevant contribution to the theory of morphogenetic fields". International Journal of Developmental Biology. 41 (6): 771–779. , with comment by SF Gilbert and JM Optiz.
  7. de Robertis, EM; Morita, EA; Cho, KWY (1991). "Gradient fields and homeobox genes" (PDF). Development. 112 (3): 669–678. PMID 1682124. 
  8. Bolker, JA (2000). "Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo". American Zoologist. 40 (5): 770–776. doi:10.1668/0003-1569(2000)040[0770:MIDAWI]2.0.CO;2. 
  9. For the morphogenetic field, see e.g. R. Sheldrake, A new science of life. The hypostasis of formative causation, London: Icon Books, 2009 (third printing), ch. 4, pp. 97vv.; for his vision of the supra-individual, see his Morphic Resonance. The Nature of Formative Causation, Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 2009 (fifth printing).

Further reading

External links

  • See a morphogenetic field model and simulation at: Lahoz-Beltra, R., Selem Mojica, N., Perales-Gravan, C., Navarro, J., Marijuan, P.C., 2008. Towards a Morphogenetic Field Theory. [1]