|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Genetic steps to adaptation
Posted by Victoria Stern [Entry posted at 4th November 2009 06:03 PM GMT]
Rate this article
The competitive or cooperative environment by JOHN COLLINS [Comment posted 2009-11-11 07:49:44] Our microbiology has been dominated by over a century of studies of single species in pure culture. In real life only bacterial communities are relevant. Are they too complicated to study at the level of point mutation adaptation? No! See for the first innovative demonstration: Hansen et al. (2007) ?Evolution of species interactions in a biofilm community?, Nature, 445, 533-536.They reported how in a very short period mutations occurred in Pseudomonas putida when grown on a solid surface with an Acinetobacter spp.. These are two unrelated soil-inhabiting bacteria. In liquid medium they can coexist in the presence of benzyl alcohol as sole carbon source, whereby the Pseudomonas strain requires the presence of the Acinetobacter strain. There is then in this simple system a metabolic dependency of one of the participants on the other. The authors tested the ability of each strain to invade pure cultures of the other either in a continuously mixed chemostat (fermentor) or in a biofilm flow chamber. Within days mutants occurred which allow the formation of more efficient biofilm communities. Each commensal doesn't profit to the same extent, and one may even be considered as a 'loser'. This is only a 'problem' if one doesn't make the comparison between the two teams, before and after adaptation. Interesting but Unique? by VETURY SITARAMAM [Comment posted 2009-11-09 02:18:19] Take rice, a highly inbred (due to predominant selfing) species. The stabilized nuclear seeds virtually represent a single tiller. But you can also take from a single tiller that has been bagged. Check the seeds for their weight and there is variation. Take each seed and measure the respiration. Again there would be a correlation larger seeds respiring more. Faster respiring seeds germinate sooner. If you determine the rate of germination quantitatively, it correlates well with time for flowering and then yield simply because these are meristematic events and plants that take more time to grow without flowering yield more. All this is published work and some pretty statistics makes the point rather well.
Why then the variation in inbred seeds? what they refer to as residual, irreducible variation, generation after generation? I will not comment on the source of this variation since it is so persistent as to believe that it is conserved. But what is the need for it? Since the onset of rains, along with monsoon, has always been an uncertainty, preservation of plant species will be difficult to imagine unless the reproduction and maintenance are guaranteed. Different rates of growth permit a large manipulable source for variation and hence the evolutionary relevance. Each generation seem to playing out all the possible scenarios in deploying energetics to match the environment, ...with an apology for the teleonomic statement. Which is a statement to evaluate evolution in action...That variations appear based on challenge or variations are in built to account many probable variations...where mechanisms for conservation of variation are the source of enquiry. John Cairns' and Alex Shapiro's work anticipated this by Steve Summers [Comment posted 2009-11-05 16:56:06] John Cairns 1988 and 1993 papers [Cairns, J. (1993). Directed mutation. Science, 260:1221-4.)] as well as A. Shapiro on Directed Mutations or Adaptive Mutations precedes this. If anything, this works remarkable results (9 adaptive mutations in a few generations) supports their observations to a higher degree. language by Alla Katsnelson [Comment posted 2009-11-05 16:54:13] Hi Katherine - I agree with your point about the need to be careful abut the language used in describing evolution. It would indeed be inappropriate to attribute to microbes the ability to make choices, but I don't feel that the sentence implies agency on their part. Thanks for reading!
-Alla Katsnelson, news editor Watch your language by Katherine Baker [Comment posted 2009-11-05 15:52:37] The research reported in this News Brief is exciting and represents a significant advance in our understanding of microbial evolution (and evolution in general). Unfortunately, the entry itself uses language that is inappropriate in discussing evolution. Specifically in the third paragraph, the author states "many bacteria switch their surface antigens when invading a host, so they can avoid being attacked and certain desert plants..." This makes it seem that the microbes are making choices and directing the evolution of traits they want. Natural selection doesn't work this way.
When we, as scientists, are sloppy in our language, we should not be surprised that our students or the public do not understand Evolution by Natural Selection. Evolution, With Compliments Of by Dov Henis [Comment posted 2009-11-05 10:12:31] Evolution, With Compliments Of
"Breathtaking View, Offered With The Compliments Of XXX Company" - was a signboard I once saw next to a bench at an off-a-climbing-road mountain-top look-out. Quotes from "Genetic Steps To Adaptation" LINK 1) "Genetic mutations -- occurring over just a few generations -- that allow bacteria to respond to environmental changes" * No no no. Definitely not genetic mutations occurring over just a few generations that allow bacteria to respond to environmental changes. Genes expressions are modified per cultural feedback of the organism. It is culture that drives genetic changes, definitely not genetic changes that drive culture. Thus it is a Pavlovian process that drives an onset of genes', which are organisms, addiction. The addiction is NOT due to an accidental genes' mutation. 2) "We showed how evolution happens in real time" * This time we are offered, with compliments of biologists, a view of evolution, the evolution each and every one of us sees all around us every second of our life, with the compliments of a biologist from Leiden University plus fellow scientists. How thrilling. 3) "bacteria and other organisms can switch back and forth between phenotypes to better survive in new environments", "The results thus suggest that phenotypic switching is a strategy that can readily evolve, and may capture the earliest evolutionary solutions to life in fluctuating environments" * With sad exasperation I suggest that this is NOT A RARE, BUT A FREQUENT, demonstration of scientists observing and recording data properly yet coming to a pre-experiment-upsidedown-ideefixe factually wrong conclusion. It is not that the evolution they observe is upside-down. It is their concept of evolution that is upside-down. Sadly suggesting, Dov Henis (Comments From The 22nd Century) So beatiful this research by guanglong hu [Comment posted 2009-11-05 04:33:06] This expriment is the one I have ever want to do!It's result is so exciting! Comment on this blog |