More than half of all animal species are holometabolous insects, whose life cycle inserts a pupal stage between larva and adult in which the body is largely rebuilt. The source paper (Manthey et al., PNAS 2024) showed comparative and theoretical support for an adaptive explanation — complete metamorphosis evolved to escape a growth–differentiation trade-off under high mortality — while explicitly declining to address the developmental-genetic mechanism, and it names the bringing together of the developmental and the adaptive perspective as an important future challenge. Follow-up work through 2026 (reviews by Suzuki, Truman & Riddiford, Konopová; new functional data by Nagata & Suzuki; a transcriptome-wide decoupling analysis by Collet et al.) has not met that challenge: no work yet integrates the adaptive scenario with the Chinmo/Broad/E93 developmental network to identify the genetic changes, and their order, that produced the pupa. Three further issues that the source raises separately also remain open — the standing of the alternative adaptive hypotheses (Hinton's burrowing/bark scenario, Wigglesworth's larval–adult genetic independence, microbiota turnover), how complete metamorphosis is related to holometabolous species richness and habitat dominance, and the general degree of larval–adult genetic decoupling.

Background

Insects with complete metamorphosis (holometaboly) pass through a feeding larval stage, a pupal stage in which most larval tissues are broken down and adult structures are rebuilt, and the adult; insects with incomplete metamorphosis (hemimetaboly) instead grow through nymphal stages that increasingly resemble the adult. Holometabolous insects — beetles, flies, moths and butterflies, wasps, bees and ants, fleas — account for the majority of described animal species, so explaining how this biphasic life cycle arose is a central question in evolutionary biology. Two largely separate research traditions address it. The developmental tradition studies the gene network that builds the life stages: the antimetamorphic transcription factor Chinmo ('chronologically inappropriate morphogenesis') maintains the larval state, the transcription factor Broad specifies the pupal stage, and the transcription factor E93 directs adult differentiation; a temporal endocrine landscape of ecdysteroid molting hormones and juvenile hormone (JH, a sesquiterpenoid that acts through its target gene Krüppel-homolog 1 to suppress metamorphosis) times the transitions among these states. Based on the timing of JH signaling and the behavior of these factors across hemi- and holometabolous species, one school holds that the larva is an extended embryonic precursor stage and the pupa is homologous to the hemimetabolous nymph, while an alternative view homologizes the pupa with the last nymphal instar; there is still no consensus. The adaptive tradition asks why selection favored the pupa at all. Manthey, Metcalf, Monaghan, Steiner and Rolff (PNAS 2024) supplied its most recent entry: compiling relative growth rates (RGR, the per-molt proportional increase in body size relative to developmental time) from the literature, they found holometabolous larvae grow much faster than hemimetabolous nymphs, and a theoretical life-history model showed that decoupling growth from differentiation — feeding and growing first, then rebuilding the body — is favored when juvenile mortality is high, because carrying differentiating tissue slows growth. The paper explicitly states that this selection-based account does not address the developmental pathways that construct larva and pupa, and that combining the two perspectives is a major unresolved challenge. It also notes three further unresolved issues, raised separately from that integration challenge. First, alternative adaptive explanations are not excluded: Hinton (1963) proposed the pupa permits wing-pad-free larvae suited to burrowing or life under bark (though a phylogenetic reconstruction by Peters et al. 2014 concludes the ancestral holometabolan larva was neither burrowing nor crevice-dwelling); Wigglesworth (1954) proposed the pupa permits genetic independence between larval and adult stages; and a microbiota-turnover hypothesis holds that gut renewal at metamorphosis lets insects exchange gut microbes when diet or habitat changes. Their relative contributions are unquantified. Second, how complete metamorphosis is related to the evolutionary success of holometabolous insects — species richness and habitat dominance, with increased developmental modularity and hence evolvability (the capacity of development to generate heritable variation; Yang 2001) offered as one explanation — is poorly understood; fossil analyses of key innovations (Nicholson et al. 2014) do not isolate holometaboly's causal contribution. Third, the actual degree of genetic decoupling between larval and adult traits is unsettled: classic studies in Drosophila found heat-shock resistance decoupled across stages (Loeschcke & Krebs 1996) but antimicrobial peptide expression coupled (Fellous & Lazzaro 2011), and the most recent transcriptome-wide measurement (Collet et al. 2023) found widespread but function-dependent independence in a single species.

Problem Statement

The problem is to produce an integrated causal-historical account of the origin of complete metamorphosis in insects — the origin of the pupa — that brings the developmental-genetic and the adaptive perspectives together: which genetic and developmental changes to the life-stage-determination network (juvenile hormone signaling through Krüppel-homolog 1, and the Chinmo, Broad and E93 transcription-factor system), in what temporal order, converted a hemimetabolous nymphal sequence into a larva–pupa–adult sequence, and how those changes were favored (or constrained) by the selection regime identified by the growth–differentiation trade-off hypothesis — rapid larval growth under high juvenile mortality. The integration is the substance of the question: the source's comparative data and life-history model support the adaptive side while making, in its own words, no statement about the developmental pathways that result in the larval and pupal stages, so an account that merely reports the mechanism and the selection regime side by side, without showing how that regime favored those changes in that order, does not answer it.

The three further issues noted in the Background — the standing of the alternative adaptive explanations for the pupa (Hinton's wing-pad-free burrowing/bark scenario; Wigglesworth's larval–adult genetic independence; microbiota turnover upon diet or habitat change, where a phylogenetic reconstruction already disfavors the ancestral holometabolan larva being burrowing or crevice-dwelling), how complete metamorphosis is related to the evolutionary success of holometabolous insects (their species richness and habitat dominance, with increased developmental modularity and evolvability offered as one explanation), and the degree to which larval and adult traits are genetically decoupled, which underpins Wigglesworth's hypothesis — are raised separately in the source and are not components of this problem. An integrated account should be consistent with what is known about them and may draw on them as evidence.

References

  1. Manthey C, Metcalf CJE, Monaghan MT, Steiner UK, Rolff J. Rapid growth and the evolution of complete metamorphosis in insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 121(38), e2402980121 (2024). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2402980121, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2402980121 (source paper; open-access full text PMC11420152)
  2. Suzuki Y. Recent molecular evidence for the origin of complete metamorphosis in insects. Current Opinion in Insect Science 75, 101491 (2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.cois.2026.101491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2026.101491
  3. Truman JW, Riddiford LM. Regulation of metamorphosis in holometabolous insects. Current Opinion in Insect Science 76, 101508 (2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.cois.2026.101508, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2026.101508
  4. Nagata H, Suzuki Y. Evolution of complete metamorphosis through temporal shifts in Chronologically inappropriate morphogenesis (Chinmo) and Broad. Development 153, dev204998 (2026). DOI: 10.1242/dev.204998, https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.204998
  5. Konopová B. Evolution of insect metamorphosis — an update. Current Opinion in Insect Science 67, 101289 (2025). DOI: 10.1016/j.cois.2024.101289, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2024.101289
  6. Truman JW, Riddiford LM. Chinmo is the larval member of the molecular trinity that directs Drosophila metamorphosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 119, e2201071119 (2022). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2201071119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2201071119
  7. Fernandez-Nicolas A, Machaj G, Ventos-Alfonso A, Pagone V, Minemura T, Ohde T, Daimon T, Ylla G, Belles X. Reduction of embryonic E93 expression as a hypothetical driver of the evolution of insect metamorphosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 120, e2216640120 (2023). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2216640120, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216640120
  8. Truman JW. The evolution of insect metamorphosis. Current Biology 29, R1252–R1268 (2019). DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.10.009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.10.009
  9. Jindra M. Where did the pupa come from? The timing of juvenile hormone signalling supports homology between stages of hemimetabolous and holometabolous insects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 374, 20190064 (2019). DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0064, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0064
  10. Rolff J, Johnston PR, Reynolds S. Complete metamorphosis of insects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 374, 20190063 (2019). DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0063, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0063
  11. Hammer TJ, Moran NA. Links between metamorphosis and symbiosis in holometabolous insects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 374, 20190068 (2019). DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0068, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0068
  12. Manthey C, Johnston PR, Nakagawa S, Rolff J. Complete metamorphosis and microbiota turnover in insects. Molecular Ecology 32, 6543–6551 (2023). DOI: 10.1111/mec.16673, https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16673
  13. Peters RS, Meusemann K, Petersen M, Mayer C, Wilbrandt J, Ziesmann T, Donath A, Kjer KM, Aspöck U, Aspöck H, Aberer A, Stamatakis A, Friedrich F, Hünefeld F, Niehuis O, Beutel RG, Misof B. The evolutionary history of holometabolous insects inferred from transcriptome-based phylogeny and comprehensive morphological data. BMC Evolutionary Biology 14, 52 (2014). DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-14-52, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-14-52
  14. Nicholson DB, Ross AJ, Mayhew PJ. Fossil evidence for key innovations in the evolution of insect diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281, 20141823 (2014). DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1823, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1823
  15. Yang AS. Modularity, evolvability, and adaptive radiations: a comparison of the hemi- and holometabolous insects. Evolution & Development 3, 59–72 (2001). DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003002059.x, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003002059.x
  16. Collet JM, Nidelet S, Fellous S. Genetic independence between traits separated by metamorphosis is widespread but varies with biological function. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 290, 20231784 (2023). DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.1784, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1784
  17. Loeschcke V, Krebs RA. Selection for heat-shock resistance in larval and in adult Drosophila buzzatii: comparing direct and indirect responses. Evolution 50, 2354–2359 (1996). DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03623.x, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03623.x
  18. Fellous S, Lazzaro BP. Potential for evolutionary coupling and decoupling of larval and adult immune gene expression. Molecular Ecology 20, 1558–1567 (2011). DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05006.x, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05006.x
  19. Hinton HE. The origin and function of the pupal stage. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, Series A 38, 77–85 (1963). DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3032.1963.tb00759.x, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3032.1963.tb00759.x
  20. Wigglesworth VB. The Physiology of Insect Metamorphosis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1954; reissued 2015). ISBN: 9781107502376, https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1478994W
  21. Beutel RG, Goczał J, Pohl H. Evolutionary adaptations in larvae of Holometabola. Annual Review of Entomology 71, 149–168 (2026). DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ento-121423-013358, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-121423-013358