"Farming" Amoebas Discovered

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday January 20, 2011 @06:41AM from the rise-of-amoeba-agriculture dept.

Researchers from Rice University have found a type of amoeba that practices a sort of "primitive farming behavior." When their bacteria food become scarce, the Dictyostelium discoideum will group together and form a "fruiting body" that will disperse bacteria spores to a new area. From the article: "The behavior falls short of the kind of 'farming' that more advanced animals do; ants, for example, nurture a single fungus species that no longer exists in the wild. But the idea that an amoeba that spends much of its life as a single-celled organism could hold short of consuming a food supply before decamping is an astonishing one. More than just a snack for the journey of dispersal, the idea is that the bacteria that travel with the spores can 'seed' a new bacterial colony, and thus a food source in case the new locale should be lacking in bacteria." It's good to know that even a single celled creature is not immune to the pull of Farmville.

49 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Rice university by Octopuscabbage · 2011-01-20 06:46 · Score: 2

Anyone think it is weird that this was found out at Rice University?
1. Re:Rice university by countSudoku() · 2011-01-20 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's weird that they used Farmvile as a reference. Single brain-celled organisms have been playing Farmvile for over a year now, with no effect on anything. Other than wasting time, and posting updates to the uninterested. Try Harvest Moon instead, and keep it to yourselves. Rice is yummy though.
  
  --
  This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
2. Re:Rice university by Samantha+Wright · 2011-01-20 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  "They" = "samzenpus". Weirdness = minimal. Tragedy = great.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
3. Re:Rice university by spun · 2011-01-20 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Came here just to make this very joke. Good job, great minds and all that.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
4. Re:Rice university by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  slashdot = stagnated
  Posted by jKristopeitBot v1.1
5. Re:Rice university by Thing+1 · 2011-01-20 13:46 · Score: 2
  
  Great minds think a lot.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 06:59 · Score: 0

Srsly. So a few of the food bacteria get caught up and carried along in the fruiting body's extracellular matrix basically accidentally; then that makes an evolutionary advantage for any mutant that evolves a slightly lower starvation-threshold, so that it stops feeding and starts forming a fruiting body slightly earlier, carrying along slightly more of the food bacteria. That's what we have here, and calling it "farming" is just hype for the sake of press attention.
1. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by Kilrah_il · 2011-01-20 07:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Farming: "The practice of cultivating the land or raising stock".
  Well, they took their stock with them, the stock was raised (i.e. multiplied) so they have a source of food. Sound like farming. Of course, it's very basic and with no intelligence behind it (just instincts), but nevertheless, it's cool. Obviously, this behavior came about due to an evolutionary advantage, but so did the ant's behavior and any other behavior you see in nature. If it wouldn't have been advantageous from an evolutionary POV, it wouldn't have been inherited to the next generations.
  Let the pedantic discussion ensue!
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
2. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by samoanbiscuit · 2011-01-20 09:18 · Score: 2
  
  Actually no, they taken "farming" and non-"farming" strains and introduced them to a sterile growth medium, then introduced their progeny to media with bacteria present. The farming strain again displays this behaviour when creating the fruiting body, and the non farming strains do not. It's a clearly heritable trait, and (at least now) there's nothing accidental about the behaviour. Of course, they don't select for particular species of bacteria, so it's pretty crude, and can lead to carying along non-food bacteria.
3. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  That is untrue.
  It doesn't HAVE to be an advantage, it just has to tag along with whoever survives.
  Luck ends up being a much greater factor that "survival of the fittest"
4. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  Farming [google.com]: "The practice of cultivating the land or raising stock".
  I think you got the emphasis in the wrong place:
  
  Farming [google.com]: "The practice of cultivating the land or raising stock".
  To practice something in any meaningful sense of the term requires consciousness. Instinctual behaviours are not "practices", nor are reflexes, nor are biochemical metabolic reactions. In particular, the amoebae do not practise the "raising of stock". They do not husband it, or feed it, or take care of it when it is sick. The food bacteria get stuck in their glutinous mess and get dragged along to a new site with the fruiting body. The amoebae are no more "practising farming" than a fox is "practising agriculture" when a burr gets stuck in its fur and drops off at a new location. Hell, even if I, a full conscious human being, step in crap and then it rubs off my shoe in a field, that doesn't mean I am "practising the fertilisation of crops".
5. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Being advantageous is not what drives evolution. Being better able to reproduce is what drives evolution. Evolution does not "care" if an adaptation is advantageous or not. Since for many organisms advantageous is directly related to ability to reproduce, it's a subtle but important distinction.
6. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by Kilrah_il · 2011-01-20 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but if you don't starve to death, there is a better chance you will be able to reproduce.
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
7. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by Kilrah_il · 2011-01-20 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  From the summery:
  
  The behavior falls short of the kind of 'farming' that more advanced animals do; ants, for example, nurture a single fungus species that no longer exists in the wild.
  I agree that it is not exactly farming in the human sense of the word, but it is a behavior that promotes cultivation of an organism (the bacteria) for the benefit of another organism (the amoeba). It is definitely an instinctive behavior, but the same can be said of the ants' behavior.
  I think the use of the word farming was just to illustrate the fact that it is a more sophisticated behavior than stepping on a pile of shit.
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
8. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by turbidostato · 2011-01-20 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  "Evolution does not "care" if an adaptation is advantageous or not."
  Of course it does care. Even to the point that "advantageous" itself is defined as "the ability to outspring the alternatives".
9. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by flaming+error · 2011-01-20 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  > It is definitely an instinctive behavior, but the same can be said of the ants' behavior.
  What's the "instinctive" distinction for? Who's to say that human farmers don't also do it instinctively? And how do we really know that ants (or squirrels) aren't in some way planning ahead?
  When I ask such questions I get drummed for being stupid and not seeing the obvious. Maybe I am stupid, because I really don't see why we humans think we are so different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Every time somebody comes along with some human trait that separates us from other animals, an example of other animals doing that behavior turns up. And we just keep on moving the goalpost.
10. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  It's provable that humans aren't doing it instinctively for several reasons. 1) Most humans can't farm; they have to learn it after they're born. This is against the definition of instinct. 2) Humans have only been farming for a small amount of their existence on earth. Before agriculture was invented around 10000 years ago, humans were all hunter-gatherers. Farming has actually been a big detriment to humans; it caused them to lose a foot in height and be much less healthy. It took thousands of years before people figured out how to eat a better-balanced diet to overcome this.
  Now you're right, I don't believe it's possible to prove that ants (or even better, squirrels) aren't actually planning ahead, rather than acting instinctively. But (esp. in the case of ants), it's unlikely due to the fact that these animals haven't shown a lot of intelligence in other ways, and also in the case of ants, because their brains are so tiny.
  Now what's really interesting about all this is that the amoeba are smart enough to not eat all their food when it goes short, and then starve to death, while humans, as societies, are definitely not that smart. Humans will do one of two things: simply claim that there's plenty of food, and that the news about a shortage is a conspiracy, or, they'll just go and kill some other humans and steal their food. I find it funny how people say there's no extraterrestrials because we haven't seen any yet; I think the answer is obvious: they're out there, and they've come and checked us out, and decided we're a bunch of stupid assholes and they don't want to be involved with us.
11. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 19:37 · Score: 0
  
  And how do we really know that ants (or squirrels) aren't in some way planning ahead?
  If squirrels planned ahead, they'd have little maps to where they buried their food stores.
12. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by flaming+error · 2011-01-21 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  > 1) Most humans can't farm; they have to learn
  > it after they're born.
  Good argument; I'll concede the "instinct" point.
  > [ants] haven't shown a lot of intelligence in
  > other ways
  I don't think of the ant organism as an individual bug, I think of it as a colony. An individual ant brain is tiny, but together there's potentially distributed processing in a massively parallel system.
  And ants have constructed amazing structures, under the ground and above.
13. Re:Calling this "farming" is a real stretch. by flaming+error · 2011-01-21 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  They used to do that, but the pirate squirrels would steal the map and go dig up the buried treasure.
But by JustOK · 2011-01-20 07:00 · Score: 3, Funny

how do they make those little tractors?

--
rewriting history since 2109
1. Re:But by Sulphur · 2011-01-20 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  how do they make those little tractors?
  The design is in their DNA. They build them in polynomial time of course.
2. Re:But by JustOK · 2011-01-20 07:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  give me 40 microns and I'll turn this rig around.
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
one of the stupidest comments ever on slashdot by commodore73 · 2011-01-20 07:01 · Score: 1

"It's good to know that even a single celled [sic] creature is not immune to the pull of Farmville" I've been reading this site for years - never expected to see something that lame.
1. Re:one of the stupidest comments ever on slashdot by Kilrah_il · 2011-01-20 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  Guess you haven't been attentive enough :)
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
2. Re:one of the stupidest comments ever on slashdot by commodore73 · 2011-01-20 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't write that I hadn't seen some serious lameness (often in people's taglines) - but I think this is really one of the lamest of the lame. Then again, I generally don't read idle and comments that haven't been moderated up.
3. Re:one of the stupidest comments ever on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  You should try reading your own posts sometime - they're pretty pathetic.
4. Re:one of the stupidest comments ever on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  Why [sic]? Single celled. Nothing wrong with that.
5. Re:one of the stupidest comments ever on slashdot by drinkypoo · 2011-01-21 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Amen to that. It actually made me feel a little sick to my stomach to read that. Slashdot shilling for Zynga == hurl
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We've known about the FV link for a while now... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 07:05 · Score: 0

"It's good to know that even a single celled creature is not immune to the pull of Farmville."
I thought that single (brain) celled creatures were the only ones playing FarmVille...
Not bacteria spores by Kilrah_il · 2011-01-20 07:05 · Score: 4, Informative

The article doesn't talk about bacteria spores, but spores of the amoeba that have bacteria inside of them. Most of these bacteria are from kinds that the amoeba "likes" to eat, so when they get to a new location, they have their "favorite" food with them. The bacteria multiply, and the amoeba feasts.
Somehow, it doesn't work so well when I go abroad and try to take raw material for my favorite food (20oz T-Bone, FYI).
You can get more info here.

--
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
1. Re:Not bacteria spores by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  Kind of like early humans pooping out seeds and then noticing berry bushes by the bathroom next spring.
2. Re:Not bacteria spores by HomelessInLaJolla · 2011-01-20 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for pointing that out. Spores are most commonly a product of fungus growths. The wikipedia page on spores begins with the statement that "Spores form part of the life cycles of many bacteria, plants, algae, fungi and some protozoans" but the reference for that goes to a 404'd pollenplus.com page--pollen is not really a spore but I imagine that, for the sake of argument, some people may try to cast it as such. Reading the remainder of the wikipedia page concentrates on fungi, rusts, smuts, and algae--almost no mention of bacteria and plants (protozoans are odd little fellows to begin with).
  So, sure, I suppose under the proper extreme nature conditions there may be some plants and bacteria which may be coerced into producing spores (plants usually go with seeds, bacteria usually divide directly without going through a hibernating entity)--much the same as stem cells are able to be nudged any which direction (and the human DNA sequence is so large that we could probably make a human cell produce a spore if we really really really aggravated it).
  What I am mostly getting at is that the concept of spores being produced by bacteria is mostly out of the Department of Homeland Security trying to push FUD into the media. That the wikipedia page even mentions bacteria and plants as spore producing, without actually backing that up in the article body, is probably because it was doctored to go along with the politicians' wish to keep everyone on edge over anthrax. Prior to the anthrax "spores" media circus I had never heard of "spores" in any biological context except fungi (and semi-related algae/smuts/rusts).
  It is always a good idea to keep such fact-checking in perspective.
  
  --
  the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
3. Re:Not bacteria spores by Kilrah_il · 2011-01-20 17:47 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, there are some spore-forming bacteria, most notobaly the Bacillus and Clostridium Genera. The references are from Wikipedia beause it's easiest to find, but I also remember it from my Med studies, so it's a confirmed fact. Clostridium's tendency to from spores is why regular alcohol cleaning of the hands isn't enough for people with Clostridium Difficile infection; you have to clean your hands with soap and water.
  
  --
  Whenever in an argument, remember this.
4. Re:Not bacteria spores by RockDoctor · 2011-01-21 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  The wikipedia page on spores begins with the statement that "Spores form part of the life cycles of many bacteria, plants, algae, fungi and some protozoans"
  This is not wrong, but it's far from precise, or comprehensive.
  
  but the reference for that goes to a 404'd pollenplus.com page
  Hmm, can't say that I'm surprised. Doesn't sound like one of the shining lights of Wikipedia.
  I'm not a biologist ; I don't claim deep knowledge in this area. But many (possibly a majority) of the dozens of phyla of "protozoa" are described as producing spores, as are a significant number of bacterial phyla. In my slowly proceeding efforts to get up-to-the-last-decade on modern biology, I haven't got up to the fungi (with which phyla one normally associates "spores"), but collectively that kingdom doesn't add to more phyla than the ones I've listed already.
  In short, "spore" seems to be a very widely used term that probably denotes a "resting" stage of many life forms, which is probably achieved in many different ways in different phyla. I suspect that on a descriptive front, one could probably make a good case for describing tardigrade tuns as spores of multicellular organisms.
  It sounds like Wikipedia isn't up to scratch for getting a coherent picture of this aspect of current biological understanding. As I said, I don't claim deep knowledge, and can't proffer recommendations for anything better, other than conventional college or on-line courses. For my purposes, working through a late-90s textbook is sufficient, even if the number of phyla has varied since publication. YMMV.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
One in three travel with their bacteria by opentunings · 2011-01-20 07:13 · Score: 3, Funny

One in three can actually farm, since they travel with their bacteria.
I guess that means that two in three are accepting agricultural subsidies instead of farming?
1. Re:One in three travel with their bacteria by geekoid · 2011-01-20 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  If thats' what it take to keep a stable food market, then...yes.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
You had to mention farmville? by donut1005 · 2011-01-20 07:16 · Score: 1

Farmville has nothing to do with this story. Why include that line?

--
3A 4E 22 05 C1 83 0B 7A
It's random, but my posting it here is probably considered illegal to someone.
1. Re:You had to mention farmville? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention, it's insulting to the work amoebas do (or gives too much credit to people wasting time on Farmville).
Dictytastic by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 07:32 · Score: 0

Dictyostelium are a model organism for studying social behaviour and evolution of cooperation - the researchers at Rice that published the article have worked on it for years. I haven't read the article but I wonder what the evidence is that "farming" is a real adaptation rather than an accident like taking crumbs of your morning toast on your beard (sorry ladies) along with you to the office?
Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-20 07:39 · Score: 0

I for one welcome our Amoeboid Overlords.
I hopy Zynga isn't watching... by surzirra · 2011-01-20 08:41 · Score: 3, Funny

If my mom and aunt send me requests from AmoebaVille I will throw a fit.
Not that weird a discovery... by d3m0nCr4t · 2011-01-20 08:59 · Score: 1

If you look at it, it doesn't seem that weird to me. I mean, this is probably how the first multiple cell creatures came into existence, simply by working together!
1. Re:Not that weird a discovery... by samoanbiscuit · 2011-01-20 09:25 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, long been known that slime molds display colonial behaviour, and that that genus has a motile "slug" colony form when it has exhausting the local food supply (really creepy to see a "plant-like" thing congeal into an "animal-like" thing). The new discovery is the fact that a significant amount of dictyo colonies carry food bacteria along with their spores, to grow wherever they land. They likely haven't outcompeted the non farming strains due to the trade-off (i.e, non farming strains do better in bacteria rich regions, while farming strains do better in bacteria free regions, bacteria meaning the ones they can eat)
An ant joke... by antdude · 2011-01-20 09:06 · Score: 1

"I used to own an ant farm but had to give it up. I couldn't find tractors small enough to fit it." --Steven Wright

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Hey! by HangingChad · 2011-01-20 09:57 · Score: 1

My amoebas just applied for farm subsidies.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
1. Re:Hey! by treeves · 2011-01-20 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  ADM = Amoebic Dysentery Market
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
FarMing Amoebas... by Habey+Gonzo · 2011-01-20 21:35 · Score: 1

I misread it as "Farting" Amoebas :)
DISCOVERED? by The_Laughing_God · 2011-01-23 19:18 · Score: 1

Discovered? This behavior was discussed in great depth in my sophomore cell bio text 30 years ago.
That course inspired me to get a degree in molecular bio, and I've posted about this behavior often, here and elsewhere. It's remarkable and inspiring in many ways, but any reference to farming -- or sudden surprise that a microbial organism is capable of doing anything but grazing to death is ... sad and ill-informed