New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

How the Panda’s “Thumb” Evolved Twice

Two species of distantly related panda may have adapted to a bamboo-centric diet in similar genetic ways  

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Giant pandas and the distantly related red pandas may have independently evolved an extra ‘digit’—a false thumb—through changes to the same genes.

The two species share a common ancestor that lived more than 40 million years ago. Giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) are distant relatives of other bears, whereas red pandas (Ailurus fulgens) are more closely related to ferrets. Both species subsist on a diet composed almost entirely of bamboo, with the help of a false digit.

The pandas’ ‘thumbs’—which are actually abnormally enlarged wrist bones—allow both species to grip and handle bamboo with remarkable dexterity. But “exactly how such evolutionarily distant animals evolved such a similar lifestyle and body form has long been a mystery,” says Steve Phelps, a geneticist at the University of Texas at Austin.


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.


In a new study, Wei Fuwen and Hu Yibo, conservation geneticists at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Zoology in Beijing, and their colleagues, produced the first genome sequence of the red panda and compared it with the giant panda genome. This comparison turned up a list of 70 genes that showed signs of evolutionary change in both species.

Two of the genes, DYNC2H1 and PCNT, are important for limb development, and mutations in these genes can cause bone and muscle abnormalities, including extra digits, in mice and humans. Both pandas also share single amino-acid changes in the proteins encoded byDYNC2H1 and PCNT that are not found in 60 other mammal species. The researchers propose that these changes could have contributed to the pandas’ false thumbs.

Seven other genes on the list—including those involved in absorbing vitamins and amino acids that the body cannot produce—may have helped both pandas subsist on nutrient-poor bamboo, says Wei. The team’s findings were published on January 16 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

Andrew Foote, an evolutionary biologist at Bangor University, UK, says that the team has come up with a “very strong” list of candidates to explain the pandas’ shared adaptations to a unique lifestyle. But he notes that the study was designed to identify only those genetic changes shared by both species—and not those unique to one panda or the other that also contribute to their similarities.

David Stern, a geneticist at the Janelia Research Campus of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Ashburn, Virginia, stresses that additional experiments—in transgenic mice, for instance—will be needed to prove that mutations in genes including DYNC2H1 and PCNTcontributed to adaptations such as the pandas’ thumbs. But he notes that the study fits in with a growing body of literature that suggests that organisms that face the same challenges often adapt in genetically similar ways. Evolution, Stern says, “is actually much more predictable than anybody predicted.”

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on January 16, 2017.

Jane Qiu is an award-winning independent science writer in Beijing. She has won a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship, as well as awards from prestigious groups such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Association of British Science Writers.

More by Jane Qiu

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

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