Epigenetics increasingly occupies a pivotal position in our understanding of inheritance, natural selection and, perhaps, even evolution. A survey of the PubMed database, however, reveals that the great majority (>93%) of epigenetic papers have an intra-, rather than an inter-generational focus, primarily on mechanisms and disease. Approximately ~1% of epigenetic papers even mention the nexus of epigenetics, natural selection and evolution. Yet, when environments are dynamic (e.g., climate change effects), there may be an “epigenetic advantage” to phenotypic switching by epigenetic inheritance, rather than by gene mutation. An epigenetically-inherited trait can arise simultaneously in many individuals, as opposed to a single individual with a gene mutation. Moreover, a transient epigenetically-modified phenotype can be quickly “sunsetted”, with individuals reverting to the original phenotype. Thus, epigenetic phenotype switching is dynamic and temporary and can help bridge periods of environmental stress. Epigenetic inheritance likely contributes to evolution both directly and indirectly. While there is as yet incomplete evidence of direct permanent incorporation of a complex epigenetic phenotype into the genome, doubtlessly, the presence of epigenetic markers and the phenotypes they create (which may sort quite separately from the genotype within a population) will influence natural selection and, so, drive the collective genotype of a population.

Epigenetic studies of both intragenerational and transgenerational epigenetic phenotypic modifications have proliferated in the last few decades. However, the strong reductionist focus on mechanism that prevails in many epigenetic studies to date has diverted attention away what might be called the ‘dynamics’ of epigenetics and its role in comparative biology. Epigenetic dynamics describes how both transgenerational and intragenerational epigenetic phenotypic modifications change in non-linear patterns over time. Importantly, a dynamic perspective suggests that epigenetic phenomena should not be regarded as ‘digital’ (on–off), in which a modified trait necessarily suddenly disappears between one generation and the next. Rather, dynamic epigenetic phenomena may be better depicted by graded, time-related changes that can potentially involve the ‘washout’ of modified phenotype both within and across generations. Conceivably, an epigenetic effect might also ‘wash-in’ over multiple generations, and there may be unexplored additive effects resulting from the pressures of environmental stressors that wax, wane and then wax again across multiple generations. Recognition of epigenetic dynamics is also highly dependent on the threshold for detection of the phenotypic modification of interest, especially when phenotypes wash out or wash in. Thus, studies of transgenerational epigenetic effects (and intragenerational effects, for that matter) that search for persistence of the phenomenon are best conducted with highly sensitive, precise quantitative methods. All of the scenarios in this review representing epigenetic dynamics are possible and some even likely. Focused investigations that concentrate on the time course will reveal much about both the impact and mechanisms of epigenetic phenomena.

The concept of animal models is well honored, and amphibians have played a prominent part in the success of using key species to discover new information about all animals. As animal models, amphibians offer several advantages that include a well-understood basic physiology, a taxonomic diversity well suited to comparative studies, tolerance to temperature and oxygen variation, and a greater similarity to humans than many other currently popular animal models. Amphibians now account for -1/4 to 1/3 of lower vertebrate and invertebrate research, and this proportion is especially true in physiological research, as evident from the high profile of amphibians as animal models in Nobel Prize research. Currently, amphibians play prominent roles in research in the physiology of musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, renal, respiratory, reproductive, and sensory systems. Amphibians are also used extensively in physiological studies aimed at generating new insights in evolutionary biology, especially in the investigation of the evolution of air breathing and terrestriality. Environmental physiology also utilizes amphibians, ranging from studies of cryoprotectants for tissue preservation to physiological reactions to hyper-gravity and space exploration. Amphibians are also playing a key role in studies of environmental endocrine disruptors that are having disproportionately large effects on amphibian populations and where specific species can serve as sentinel species for environmental pollution. Finally, amphibian genera such as Xenopus , a genus relatively well understood metabolically and physiologically, will continue to contribute increasingly in this new era of systems biology and “X-omics.”

The slow, inexorable rise in annual average global temperatures and acidification of the oceans are often advanced as consequences of global change. However, many environmental changes, especially those involving weather (as opposed to climate), are often stochastic, variable and extreme, particularly in temperate terrestrial or freshwater habitats. Moreover, few studies of animal and plant phenotypic plasticity employ realistic (i.e. short-term, stochastic) environmental change in their protocols. Here, I posit that the frequently abrupt environmental changes (days, weeks, months) accompanying much longer-term general climate change (e.g. global warming over decades or centuries) require consideration of the true nature of environmental change (as opposed to statistical means) coupled with an expansion of focus to consider developmental phenotypic plasticity. Such plasticity can be in multiple forms – obligatory/facultative, beneficial/deleterious – depending upon the degree and rate of environmental variability at specific points in organismal development. Essentially, adult phenotypic plasticity, as important as it is, will be irrelevant if developing offspring lack sufficient plasticity to create modified phenotypes necessary for survival.

The prevalent view of developmental phenotypic switching holds that phenotype modifications occurring during critical windows of development are “irreversible” – that is, once produced by environmental perturbation, the consequent juvenile and/or adult phenotypes are indelibly modified. Certainly, many such changes appear to be non-reversible later in life. Yet, whether animals with switched phenotypes during early development are unable to return to a normal range of adult phenotypes, or whether they do not experience the specific environmental conditions necessary for them to switch back to the normal range of adult phenotypes, remains an open question. Moreover, developmental critical windows are typically brief, early periods punctuating a much longer period of overall development. This leaves open additional developmental time for reversal (correction) of a switched phenotype resulting from an adverse environment early in development. Such reversal could occur from right after the critical window “closes,” all the way into adulthood. In fact, examples abound of the capacity to return to normal adult phenotypes following phenotypic changes enabled by earlier developmental plasticity. Such examples include cold tolerance in the fruit fly, developmental switching of mouth formation in a nematode, organization of the spinal cord of larval zebrafish, camouflage pigmentation formation in larval newts, respiratory chemosensitivity in frogs, temperature-metabolism relations in turtles, development of vascular smooth muscle and kidney tissue in mammals, hatching/birth weight in numerous vertebrates,. More extreme cases of actual reversal (not just correction) occur in invertebrates (e.g., hydrozoans, barnacles) that actually ‘backtrack’ along normal developmental trajectories from adults back to earlier developmental stages. While developmental phenotypic switching is often viewed as a permanent deviation from the normal range of developmental plans, the concept of developmental phenotypic switching should be expanded to include sufficient plasticity allowing subsequent correction resulting in the normal adult phenotype.