Dark-Dwelling Fish Converge on Blindness

DNA analysis revealed that 11 populations of blind cave fish did not all descend from a single blind ancestor, but had five separate evolutionary origins. Sophie Bushwick reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When Mexican tetra fish moved into dark caves long ago, they evolved to deal with the dark by becoming albino…and going blind. And new research shows that the changes various cave fish populations went through occurred repeatedly—a massive, textbook example of convergent evolution. The study is in the journal BioMed Central Evolutionary Biology. [Martina Bradic et al., "Gene flow and population structure in the Mexican blind cavefish complex (Astyanax mexicanus)"]

To determine how the dark-dwelling fish evolved their sightlessness, researchers tested the DNA of 11 Mexican cave fish populations. They compared the genes with those of tetra populations that lived out in the light. Originally, researchers had believed that all of the cave populations were descended from a single group of tetra fish that went underground and then went blind. But the cave fish genes told a different story: the 11 populations had five separate evolutionary origins, with different groups independently experiencing and selecting an eyeless mutation.

Although the surface- and cave-dwelling fish frequently mix, interbreeding has not eradicated cave fish blindness. Which means that evolution is actively selecting blindness. Perhaps because investing bodily resources in sight is a waste of energy in the dark.


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.


—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.] 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe