Posted on 11/22/2002 9:09:10 PM PST by forsnax5
NSF awards grants to discover the relationships of 1.75 million species
One of the most profound ideas to emerge in modern science is Charles Darwin's concept that all of life, from the smallest microorganism to the largest vertebrate, is connected through genetic relatedness in a vast genealogy. This "Tree of Life" summarizes all we know about biological diversity and underpins much of modern biology, yet many of its branches remain poorly known and unresolved.
To help scientists discover what Darwin described as the tree's "everbranching and beautiful ramifications," the National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded $17 million in "Assembling the Tree of Life" grants to researchers at more than 25 institutions. Their studies range from investigations of entire pieces of DNA to assemble the bacterial branches; to the study of the origins of land plants from algae; to understanding the most diverse group of terrestrial predators, the spiders; to the diversity of fungi and parasitic roundworms; to the relationships of birds and dinosaurs.
"Despite the enormity of the task," said Quentin Wheeler, director of NSF's division of environmental biology, which funded the awards, "now is the time to reconstruct the tree of life. The conceptual, computational and technological tools are available to rapidly resolve most, if not all, major branches of the tree of life. At the same time, progress in many research areas from genomics to evolution and development is currently encumbered by the lack of a rigorous historical framework to guide research."
Scientists estimate that the 1.75 million known species are only 10 percent of the total species on earth, and that many of those species will disappear in the decades ahead. Learning about these species and their evolutionary history is epic in its scope, spanning all the life forms of an entire planet over its several billion year history, said Wheeler.
Why is assembling the tree of life so important? The tree is a picture of historical relationships that explains all similarities and differences among plants, animals and microorganisms. Because it explains biological diversity, the Tree of Life has proven useful in many fields, such as choosing experimental systems for biological research, determining which genes are common to many kinds of organisms and which are unique, tracking the origin and spread of emerging diseases and their vectors, bio-prospecting for pharmaceutical and agrochemical products, developing data bases for genetic information, and evaluating risk factors for species conservation and ecosystem restoration.
The Assembling the Tree of Life grants provide support for large multi-investigator, multi-institutional, international teams of scientists who can combine expertise and data sources, from paleontology to morphology, developmental biology, and molecular biology, says Wheeler. The awards will also involve developing software for improved visualization and analysis of extremely large data sets, and outreach and education programs in comparative phylogenetic biology and paleontology, emphasizing new training activities, informal science education, and Internet resources and dissemination.
-NSF-
For a list of the Assembling the Tree of Life grants, see: http://www.nsf.gov/bio/pubs/awards/atol_02.htm
Naturally, it would, because we have DNA sequences from extant species.
I certainly agree that we have DNA sequences from extant species - it's the extinct species in the "tree" where I suspect we usually only have fossils, i.e. we're missing soft tissue samples to map the DNA.
My understanding of forensics is that DNA cannot be derived from bones. If you can do a DNA study from a fossil, please let me know!
It appears to me that the biggest part of the classic tree (bottom through limbs) was projected primarily from the study of fossil and geological evidence. DNA information on extant species can offer additional information on the "leaves" of that classic tree, but cannot speak any further without making considerable assumptions. So therefore, when I look at what the DNA research is capable of saying about evolution - I still think it will look like a "lawn."
I recall Clifford Jolly stating that, rather than looking at Darwinian prediction as a tree, it could be suggested that it resembles the rings of an onion with phyla radiating outward. Interesting construct, but I never saw any chart.
That is a very interesting concept! IMHO, it would be more compatible to the "lawn" observation I made since "time" does not necessarily become a factor in constructing it. The classic tree is based on time, vertically speaking.
More relevant would be the correlation between sequences.
It will be very interesting to see how they plan to analyze the data statistically. In the worst case scenario, perhaps they will just use the information to footnote the classic tree and make a few adjustments here and there...
That's not true at all. There are several aspects of evolution and each is well defined. There are many different meanings for species and some are rather loose, but for sexual species inter-sterility is a pretty strict definition.
Certainly, when you look at fossils with reference to geological information there is a time inference which permits graphics to show fossils over time.
Genetic information however is not going to be available for those fossils (as I understand) and therefore the new information is going to be rather shallow without making a lot of assumptions.
They will.
Thanks for a good post. I agree with you as would any good programmer.
There was a recent thread that certain proteins can be recovered from fossils some tens of millions of years old.
Would you expect a tree built using some set of genes to be correlated to a tree built using some other set? Is suspect you would say no. That seems a fairly easy and definite test.
There was a recent thread that certain proteins can be recovered from fossils some tens of millions of years old.
That is fascinating! Could you find a link for us?
I'm not sure what the research plans are at this point; but comparing sequences would make sense.
Facts vs belief. Facts vs belief. I have a whole pile of these, things that someone said, that everyone said what it meant, when you really look at it, that's not what he or she said.
And you are right, futile. What one doesn't wish to see, one cannot see.
This is of course assuming that only man was made in God's image.
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.