New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Eye-Opening Sex

Sight returns to cavefish blind for one million years

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Anatomical features that took millennia to evolve can revert in a single generation. Specifically, sex between blind cavefish, if done right, can lead to progeny that can see.
The blind, albino, cave-dwelling form of the Mexican tetra (Astyanax mexicanus) evolved from ancestors living near the water’s surface whose eyesight withered after they descended into complete darkness roughly one million years ago. These cavefish, which thrive in the freshwater caves of northeastern Mexico, can reach about 12 centimeters in length, and skin grows over their useless eyes.

Studies revealed that eye loss evolved independently at least three times among the cavefish; in each case, blindness resulted from mutations at several gene sites. At least some of the mutations responsible for this loss of vision differed between the 29 populations of cavefish known to exist. This mutational variety suggested that breeding different cavefish lineages together might result in offspring that could see, because the genetic deficiencies of one group might be compensated for by working genes in another.

In the January 8 Current Biology, evolutionary biologist Richard Borowsky of New York University found that the hybrid progeny of different cave populations all indeed had some fish with smaller than normal yet functional eyes capable of following a series of moving stripes. The farther apart the home caves of the blind parents were, the more likely their progeny had sight, Borowsky adds.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This pattern supports the notion that lineages separated by greater distances are probably more distantly related and so have less overlap in terms of the genes behind their blindness. Identifying the specific mutations underlying vision loss in the fish could help illuminate human eye development and blindness.

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi
Scientific American Magazine Vol 298 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Eye-Opening Sex” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 298 No. 3 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican032008-2EtvKghWT2JBpdhnSR3PwE

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe