Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Researchers Evolve A Complex Genetic Trait In The Laboratory
ScienceDaily ^

Posted on 02/13/2006 5:01:39 PM PST by FlameThrower

Researchers Evolve A Complex Genetic Trait In The Laboratory

Duke University biologists have evolved a complex trait in the laboratory -- using the pressure of selection to induce tobacco hornworms to evolve the dual trait of turning black or green depending on the temperature during their development. The biologists have also demonstrated the basic hormonal mechanism underlying the evolution of such dual traits.

Frederik Nijhout shows the "polyphenic" hornworm he and Yuichiro Suzuki evolved. (Photo Credit: Les Todd)Their experiments, they said, offer important insight into how complex traits involving many genes can abruptly "blossom" in an organism's evolution.

The researchers -- Professor of Biology Frederik Nijhout and graduate student Yuichiro Suzuki -- published their findings in the Feb. 3, 2006, Science. Their work was funded by the National Science Foundation.

The complex traits, or "polyphenisms," they studied are instances in which animals with the same genetic makeup can produce quite different traits, or phenotypes, in different environments. For example, genetically identical ants can develop into queens, soldiers, or workers, according to their early hormonal environment. Or, the same butterfly can assume very different coloration in winter or summer. A kind of polyphenism is also likely at work in mammals -- for example in the seasonal development of antlers or changes in plumage or coat colors, said Nijhout and Suzuki.

While biologists have understood the basic machinery underlying polyphenisms, the mystery remained how such complex traits, which involve mutations in multiple genes, could evolve and persist.

"It's long been known that polyphenisms are controlled by hormones, with the brain sensing environmental signals and altering the pattern of hormonal secretions," said Nijhout. "In turn, these hormonal patterns turn sets of genes on or off to produce different traits. However, we understood only the developmental mechanism, and how it is possible with a single genome in an animal to produce two very different phenotypes," he said.

"There had been theoretical models to explain the evolutionary mechanism -- how selective pressures can maintain polyphenisms in a population, and why they don't converge gradually into one form or another," said Nijhout. "But nobody had ever started with a species that didn't have a polyphenism and generated a brand-new polyphenism. Such a demonstration could offer important insights into the evolutionary mechanism underlying such traits."

In their experiments, Suzuki and Nijhout chose a species of finger-sized tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta, which normally produces only green larvae. Because a related species, Manduca quinquemaculata, develops black or green larvae when exposed to lower or higher temperatures, the researchers theorized that they could use temperature shocks to evolve a similar polyphenism in M. sexta.

Suzuki and Nijhout conducted their experiments on a black mutant form of M. sexta, which is black because of lower production of a key hormone called juvenile hormone. They subjected the black mutant caterpillars to heat during a critical period, and over multiple generations selected for two different lines of mutant caterpillars. One polyphenic line was selected to show increased greenness on heat treatment, and one monophenic line selected to show decreased color change upon heat treatment.

After rearing and selecting ten generations of caterpillars, with about 300 caterpillars per generation, the researchers found that they had, indeed, created the two distinct strains. The polyphenic strain would develop a green color at higher temperatures, altering abruptly at a temperature of about 28 degrees C. (83 degrees F.) In contrast, the monophenic strain remained black at all temperatures.

The researchers could compare these strains to understand the origin of the polyphenism. Their experiments revealed that it was the level of juvenile hormone in the caterpillars that regulated whether they would turn black or green.

For example, by applying a spot of juvenile hormone extracted from a green caterpillar to a black caterpillar during a critical period, Suzuki could produce a green spot on that caterpillar.

Also, by tightening a tiny noose around a developing caterpillar's head to prevent the juvenile hormone -- produced in the head -- from flowing to the rest of the body of the heated polyphenic worm, Suzuki could prevent the caterpillar from turning green.

According to Nijhout, the generation of polyphenism in the caterpillar demonstrates an evolutionary phenomenon called "genetic accommodation." In this process, a mutation in a regulatory pathway such as a hormonal pathway changes the hormonal level to bring it closer to a threshold level that could be affected by environmental variation.

Thus, the black mutant hornworm had "dialed-down" levels of juvenile hormone, so that the caterpillar's color-producing machinery would be more likely to be affected by temperature. By selecting for a temperature-sensitive strain, the researchers established polyphenism in the caterpillar.

"Our work is really the first demonstration that genetic accommodation actually can happen," said Nijhout. "In this case, it happens in the laboratory by artificial selection; but as with all such experiments, we assume that this is a microcosm of what is actually going on in nature."

Nijhout theorized that such "homeostatic" mechanisms that maintain, for example, the color of a caterpillar, can act to mask a great deal of mutations present within the genetic machinery.

"Homeostatic mechanisms tend to stabilize a phenotype such as color and, therefore, allow the accumulation of underlying, covert mutations just as an electrical capacitor acts to accumulate charge. And eventually, these mutations could 'break out' of that constraint to produce a sudden phenotypic change; and one way for them to break out is for a mutation to happen -- for example, one that alters a hormonal level -- releasing all this variation.

"The reason this 'capacitor' concept is important in understanding evolution and the origin of complex traits is that the common model is that a new trait gets started by a fortuitous single mutation," said Nijhout. "And while that likely happens, we believe that another important mechanism involves the accumulation of many mutations in many genes without any apparent effect because they are buffered by a homeostatic mechanism; then all of a sudden one of them alters the homeostatic mechanism and lots of genetic variation suddenly explodes and is revealed as a tremendous increase in the phenotypic variability of the species. This variation then serves as raw material for selection to mold a new adaptive trait. And so that's why we think these kinds of experiments demonstrate an important novel mechanism for the evolution of novel traits."

In further studies, Nijhout and his colleagues will seek to determine whether the type of evolutionary mechanism they demonstrated in the laboratory also occurs in nature. Also, they will seek to demonstrate the phenomenon of the genetic 'capacitor,' in which mutations can accumulate 'invisibly' without obviously affecting a trait, and whether natural selection tends to filter out deleterious mutations in such cases.


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: evolution; genetics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: Creationist
[ There are 35 kind of dog in the dog kind. ]

Domestic dogs and most cats are not created by God but by man.. Domestic almost anythings are bred down from some source.. They were not here "in the beginning".. In that sense evolution evolved.. Could be that some natural "kinds" evolved from what they once were.. animals, birds, insects, or plants.. But taking it all the way back to our father the oooze.. is a bit much.. Evolution expanded to be an answer for where life came from is a Fairy Tale for Adults.. A convoluted myth speckled with believable but wholly unproven speculation.. as is the "big bang".. Preconceived notions with mathematical uncertainty.. trying to make sense of the infinity of the expanse.. The human mind has trouble with infinity.. and trys to reign it in.. Humans are arrogant creatures with both with engineering and metaphysics.. The void is also hard to grasp.. Infinity and the void.. can make humans stupid.. The answer being you don't know now and maybe never will know.. is like telling a spoiled child NO.. They just can't handle NO.. and throw a fit..

41 posted on 02/16/2006 1:50:10 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Quick, which is the correct term: "specieation" or "speciation"?"

Quick, what does this have to do with the legitimacy of the word *kind* in taxonomy?
42 posted on 02/16/2006 3:00:16 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I'm not part of the discussion concerning "kind". However, having studied Old West Gothic as well as Old English (such as it was BEFORE the Norman invasion), I will say that "kind" is just the sort of word an Anglo-Saxon scientist would have selected to mean "species".

The use of French and Latin based words is a modern affectation (if you will).

I don't happen to know what the Hebrew word is that is translated as "kind", but it's probably fairly similar to the earlier Sumerian word for "kind".

You might check that out for us. Always bothers me to draw too heavy an inference form an English translation of Latin or Greek or Aramaic which is, itself, a translation of earlier Hebrew, or Egyptian, or Sumerian. You just never know what "kind" of trouble you might get into doing that.

43 posted on 02/16/2006 6:11:33 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"I'm not part of the discussion concerning "kind". However, having studied Old West Gothic as well as Old English (such as it was BEFORE the Norman invasion), I will say that "kind" is just the sort of word an Anglo-Saxon scientist would have selected to mean "species"."

Absolutley irrelevant. The point isn't what people 1,000 years ago meant by *kind* but what is meant today. Today, the term has no scientific meaning; it's ambiguous beyond the point of any usefulness. As used by creationists, it has nothing to do with any biological category.
44 posted on 02/16/2006 6:16:15 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The word "kind" has a great deal of meaning. No doubt you can make it through a month, or maybe a week, without using the word, or any of its cognates, but most people find it a very useful part of their vocabulary.

I'm referencing the New England Journal of Medicine, a peer reviewed journal BTW, to see how well they get along without using the word "kind" in some recent articles.

Let's try an abstract of that one on calcium supplements in postmenepausal women. Well, you are in luck, the abstract shows ZERO instances. On the other hand, in an article about medical outsourcing (filled with all sorts of scientific findings and discussion) the author used "kinds", as in "all kinds of" ~

So, it's obvious that "kind" is simply not prohibited in even peer reviewed journals.

So, let's go take a look at Science News.

Rather than grind through all sorts of articles in a recent issue, I took the current website and did a search for "kind" as it might appear in titles. Lo and Behold, 472 items popped up where the scientist editor decided the scientist author would be well served with the word "kind".

I think your claim is without foundation.

So, get on with it and find a cognate word that both you and the Holy Joes can use to communicate with each other.

You simply cannot use the supposed imprecision of "kind" as an excuse for failing to meet the challenge of rational argument of your position.

45 posted on 02/16/2006 6:50:17 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

BTW, wolves and dogs are the same species. I have no idea where you got the idea they were different species.


46 posted on 02/16/2006 6:52:02 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"The word "kind" has a great deal of meaning."

Not in science.

". No doubt you can make it through a month, or maybe a week, without using the word, or any of its cognates, but most people find it a very useful part of their vocabulary."

Most people aren't taxonomists.

"So, it's obvious that "kind" is simply not prohibited in even peer reviewed journals."

If I didn't know I would get banned ( and if I was raised differently), I would tell you where to go after insulting my intelligence with this tripe. You know I wasn't talking about the trivial use of the word *kind* but the attempt by creationists to use *kind* as a meaningful taxonomic term.

"I think your claim is without foundation."

I think you're full of $%%^.
47 posted on 02/16/2006 6:56:30 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"BTW, wolves and dogs are the same species. I have no idea where you got the idea they were different species."

Canis lupus: Wolves
Canis familiaris: domestic dogs
48 posted on 02/16/2006 6:59:09 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I'm simply trying to demonstrate that all of the evidence you mustered regarding the word "kind" is ephemeral and without substance.

That doesn't mean you didn't mean well, but you misrepresented the facts.

What kind of scientist does that?

49 posted on 02/16/2006 7:09:36 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I see them in the school yard playground about once a month demonstrating they can crossbreed and produce fertile offspring ~ which is certainly a test of critters being in the SAME SPECIES.

The fact that somebody came up with two different names for one species is really not surprising. A lot of that used to happen before we knew about DNA.

50 posted on 02/16/2006 7:10:50 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"I'm simply trying to demonstrate that all of the evidence you mustered regarding the word "kind" is ephemeral and without substance."

You've failed miserably.

"That doesn't mean you didn't mean well, but you misrepresented the facts."

No, that would have been you. You tried to show that since the word *kind* appeared in peer review scientific articles (in a totally trivial and non scientific way), that meant that *kind* was a legitimate taxonomic term. This is insulting to anybody with an IQ over 10. The word *the* appears too, but it is not a meaningful taxonomic term. You have showed NOBODY using the term as meaningful taxonomic definition.

"I see them in the school yard playground about once a month demonstrating they can crossbreed and produce fertile offspring ~ which is certainly a test of critters being in the SAME SPECIES"

They are not the same species. A chihuahua will not breed with a wolf.
51 posted on 02/16/2006 7:18:35 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

A chihuahua will breed with anything if you don't watch out. They must be "fixed" early.


52 posted on 02/16/2006 7:23:12 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

"A chihuahua will breed with anything if you don't watch out. They must be "fixed" early."

Not a wolf.


53 posted on 02/16/2006 7:23:46 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

neither will a tiger and a lion yet they have ligers.


54 posted on 02/16/2006 9:41:21 PM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
"neither will a tiger and a lion yet they have ligers."

1) Lions and tigers interbreed only under the most extreme conditions.

2) Liger's fertility rates are far below replacement level.

3) A Chihuahua won't breed with a wolf, or, even better, a 230 pound Mastiff. 4) *Kind* has no meaning in taxonomy.
55 posted on 02/17/2006 4:01:58 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Congratulations, Duke--you've done a fair imitation of breeding out for type. You can take your place among the successful livestock developers in the past several millenia. (But it would be in good taste not to crowd them. After all, these dairymen did us a great service. What'd you do?)

Who would have thought that the dairymen of Jersey and Guernsey, who bred the tiny little dun-colored cows with the deliciously high butterfat content (and sweet little faces), were actually "scientists"?!

One thing though--our best ice cream (Bluebell) is made from the cream from these little cows. But what will Duke have to show for their efforts except outlandish, misleading, claims?

56 posted on 02/17/2006 6:56:37 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Carolinagutlessman is trying to lead you to the term "ring species"--and away from the common sense experience that you already know from observing nature.

the evos' big push now is to attempt to set the terms of debate.

And when you can set your own terms in a debate, it isn't even a debate at all--which is how the evos want it.

I'd show him the respect of addressing him directly, but he threatens to run and make a nuisance of himself with the mods. Ergo, the gutless.

57 posted on 02/17/2006 7:01:42 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

they will not breed naturally. yet I am sure you could through invetro fertilization. Kind has a meaning in taxonomy. Ligars are a product of man, they are not natural. It just proves that the cat kind is breedable. Since the word is meaningless to you when you ever speak of science please do not use it ever.


58 posted on 02/17/2006 10:49:44 AM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

"Kind has a meaning in taxonomy."

Then why isn;t it used by any practicing taxonomists?

"Since the word is meaningless to you when you ever speak of science please do not use it ever."

No, now you are being even denser than normal. I said it was meaningless as a term in taxonomy. I did not in any way rule out trivial uses of the word *kind*, as in *This kind of thing is found to be common in prey-predetor relationships*, and so on. *Kind*, as a means to describe a biological population, is worthless because it has absolutely no definition other than "*Wink Wink* You know what a kind is..."


59 posted on 02/17/2006 10:56:32 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Websters, Second College Edition, New World Dictionary of the American Language ----kind----
1. [Archaic] (a) origin (b) nature (c) manner; way
2. a natural group or division (the rodent kind) sometimes used in compounds (human-kind)
3.essential character
4. sort; variety: class

So the definition of the word kind in the number 2 has been removed as a meaning which is a scientific determination of a division by you and the rest of the world must follow suit.

You can not remove a meaning of a word and call it useless in a specific application because you do not like that is is related to the Bible.
The word is legitimate to use as a scientific word it may not be the word of the day but it can define a situation as well as the word species.
Also the definition in number 4 has a scientific use a German Shepard is a sort of the dog kind.
A Japanese Silky is a variety of the chicken kind. Which is interfertil with a Rhode Island Red even though it is from across the ocean.
A Clydesdale is a class of the horse kind.
60 posted on 02/17/2006 11:40:35 AM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson