Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Resurrect 500-Million-Year-Old Gene Inside Modern Organism
An anonymous reader writes with news that researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have taken a gene from 500-million-year-old bacteria and inserted it into modern E. coli bacteria. They then allowed the bacteria to evolve over the course of a thousand generations to see whether it would resemble its original 'evolutionary trajectory.' From the article:
"After achieving the difficult task of placing the ancient gene in the correct chromosomal order and position in place of the modern gene within E. coli, Kaçar produced eight identical bacterial strains and allowed 'ancient life' to re-evolve. This chimeric bacteria composed of both modern and ancient genes survived, but grew about two times slower than its counterpart composed of only modern genes. 'The altered organism wasn’t as healthy or fit as its modern-day version, at least initially,' said Gaucher, 'and this created a perfect scenario that would allow the altered organism to adapt and become more fit as it accumulated mutations with each passing day.' The growth rate eventually increased and, after the first 500 generations, the scientists sequenced the genomes of all eight lineages to determine how the bacteria adapted. Not only did the fitness levels increase to nearly modern-day levels, but also some of the altered lineages actually became healthier than their modern counterpart."
Twelve. Monkeys.
this damage they inferred as meaning they took the gene back 500 million years
then the bacteria slowly repaired the damage with successive mutations, somehow meaning 500 million years of evolution had been reacquired
"some of the altered lineages actually became healthier than their modern counterpart"
meaning the typical background noise of random mutations, within or without this experiment, leads to natural variation in fitness
it's an interesting experiment, but the write up is highly contrived about what they actually did
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Because what the world needs now is a better E. coli.
Science: Is there nothing it can't do?
“we want to know if an organism’s history limits its future and if evolution always leads to a single, defined point or whether evolution has multiple solutions to a given problem.”
I would wager it would almost have to be the latter. For example, I found it odd that the article made no mention of horizontal gene transfer and how, over 500 million years, the chance of that bacteria participating in HGT with a distantly related bacteria could have given it, say, a faster growth mechanism -- just like bacterial resistance to drugs is theorized to be a result of HGT. This is probably a useful experiment to look at one of the many mechanisms of evolution but not the entire picture of evolution nor could it effectively draw a final conclusion that "evolution always leads to a single, defined point."
My work here is dung.
not as healthy or fit as its modern-day version *under the conditions tested*.
Again, under the conditions tested.
An interesting finding, but fitness measured across one or a handful of laboratory conditions is not a measure of an organisms true ability to survive in the highly variable natural environment. In particular, it seems extremely unlikely to me that any of the lineages derived from the ancient strains are actually better suited for survival. These Bacteria have been selected upon for 500 million years, so the chances of re-evolving a superior strain in such a short time seems unlikely.
So they created a new strain of dangerous bacteria that people have no exposure and inherent resistance to? Great idea.
He was in the petri dishes the whole time.
'nuff said.
Well, a defining characteristic of the e. coli species is the lack of an ability to transport citrate across the cell membrane. Enough so that this is often used to differentiate e. coli from salmonella in cultures. So, evolving the ability to transport (and therefore metabolize) citrate in the lab would seem to be a pretty good example of e. coli becoming something other than e. coli (lacking one of the defining characteristics of the species).
I sincerely hope this one doesn't leave the lab...
Not only in the summary here on /. horrible, but the PR ... is even worse.
Where's the link to the peer-reviewed work? Neither in the "summary", nor in the PR.
FWIW, I don't find the purported results interesting in the slightest in their current form.
For example, how were the cells grown? (please don't say in LB in a chemostat.)
I was expecting a huge explosion of growth that chases the scientist out of the lab, grabs his ankle with a tentacle, drags him back into the lab to infect him and give him Akira-like telekinetic power and a thirst for world rule
our new ancient bacteria overlords.
What's amazing in modern society is how so many non-scientists (mainly religious fundamentalists of different sects) think evolution is very much up for debate while problems in physics are totally solved when it's the other way around. I was confronted once by an anti-evolution person who thought exactly how gravity works was a long ago solved case but evolution was some new wacky baseless idea being forced on gullible unbelievers.
It's super convenient and amazing how those genes have special teeny tiny little tags built in that say "Exactly 500 Million Year Old Gene"!
If you look really close, you can probably see a really really tiny cake with like 500 million candles and leftover party favors from other really old gene friends.
We know neither the exact function of those old genes, nor how they interact with modern genomes. This is just a stunt, such experiments should be strictly controlled (not forbidden though) and not allowed in academic researach labs. F* morons, they never learn, they just want to save the world (and their careers) even if they have to kill the world to do it.
Man. It's like these scientists have never even seen a horror movie.
"Big things come from small beginnings."
Evolution is just the process of adapting to selective pressure. How things evolve depends on the best responses to that pressure.
If you just kind of let them go, with no pressure at all, then you probably won't see much evolution.
If you apply pressure, one would expect the end-results to be a natural response to that pressure.
I am not sure what this "trajectory" business is all about. Evolution does not have momentum.
Arslan BK and Gaucher EA Replaying the Tape of Life Through Experimental Evolution of Ancient EF-Tu proteins Astrobiology Science Conference 2010: Evolution and Life: Surviving Catastrophes and Extremes on Earth and Beyond, held April 26-20, 2010 in League City, Texas. LPI Contribution No. 1538
Which I think was just a presentation that provides very little information given all I can find is this PDF:
Whether evolution would ‘replay the tape of life’ if given the opportunity has long fascinated biologists. Paleogenetics via laboratory resurrected ancient genes not only reveals information regarding ancestral phenotypes and environments but also provides an opportunity to ‘replay’ the molecular tape of life. Recent work has demonstrated that ancestral sequences can be computationally determined and experimentally resurrected. The ideal paleoexperimental evolution system requires an organism with a short generation time and a protein whose ancestral genotype and phenotype used to replace the modern gene and causes the modern host to be less fit. The research described here focuses on Elongation Factor Tu (EF-Tu) involved in the protein synthesis machinery of both eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms. The optimal thermostability of EF-Tus correlates with the optimal thermostability of their host organisms and are ideal for these types of experiments. Previously we have resurrected ancient EF-Tus and showed that these ancient proteins display a range of thermostability profiles. We will replace the modern EF-Tu sequences with ancient EF-Tus and observe their adaptation through experimental evolution. Results from this work will help us identify whether evolution is repetitive for this experimental system.
I don't think that really answers your question and I think this research has only been presented at conferences, published in conference proceedings and not yet peer reviewed in a journal (if it has there is no mention of it on Kacar's CV). I also find it odd that on her site she's using the phrase "tree of life" and not "web of life" which I thought was a more modern way of looking at evolution -- especially in prokaryotes.
I will say that it is probably within line to chide the researcher for putting this little blurb on her research page:
Experimental Evolution of Ancient Proteins
To assess the role of contingency in evolution, I construct an experimental time machine in the lab by inserting previously resurrected genes into a modern bacterial genomes, then subjecting them to experimental evolution. Observing the real-time evolution of ancient genes as they adapt to the conditions of modern bacteria allows us to analyze evolution in action.
"Experimental time machine?" Please, leave the hype and sensationalism to the "science" reporters.
My work here is dung.
What if they accidentally unleash a zombie/zerg bacteria/virus?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
What?! It's evolving...
Congratulations! Your E.Coli evolved into MoreFundingForLenski.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Hugh Hefner has been doing this for a while.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
There was a reason why that gene died off. Just because you can does not mean you should. What's next lets put some Hitler DNA inside an embryo. Oh wait that was "Boys from Brazil"
Damn hypocrites, slicing ancient genes is ok but re-cloning Hitler and put his brain in a great white shark is suddenly over the top!
The local bacteriophages welcome their new frankenfood overlords.
Welcome them for dinner that is!
Bon appetit!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's time to realize that a "defining characteristic" assigned my man is subject to revision.
There was a time that, for a person, having a heartbeat was a defining characteristic of being alive.
We now know no longer consider you dead just because your heart stopped.
Not to mention that some models of artificial hearts or heart-assist devices result in a person who is alive, awake, and functional without a pulse, or at least not one that you would recognize if you put your fingers on the person's wrist.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Speaking of revisions, let's try this again:
It's time to realize that a "defining characteristic" assigned by man is subject to revision.
There was a time that, for a person, having a heartbeat was a defining characteristic of being alive.
We now know no longer consider you dead just because your heart stopped.
Not to mention that some models of artificial hearts or heart-assist devices result in a person who is alive, awake, and functional without a pulse, or at least not one that you would recognize if you put your fingers on the person's wrist.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I hate it when people say they are doing "evolutionary science" when what they are actually doing is history. Maybe in the days of natural philosophy conflating science and history was understandable, but we're supposed to have a clearer understanding of what we are doing now. Science requires experimentation, not speculation about stuff you dug up.
The world is only 6000 years old.
The Conservative Judeo-Christian "about 5000-10000 year old universe" crowd doen't all say evolution CAN'T happen, but they all do say that within 6x24 hours of the creation of the Universe, the world looked like that described in Genesis. They don't say that if Rapture doesn't come for another 100,000 years we won't have new species, nor do most say that we don't have species now that didn't exist at the time of Adam and Eve. But for the fact that the sun may expand sooner, I would've used a billion years instead of 100,000 years, since it's pretty hard to argue against very visible evolution over a billion-year time frame.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
velocibacteria
Thanks, that was just the laugh I needed this morning. =)
/* No Comment */
A 500 million years old diarrhea.
This is why they ended at 1000 generations.
You never, ever let evolution experiments get to 1001 generations. It ALWAYS turns into Hitler brain in a great white shark. Creationists are so adamantly against evolution because they're trying to protect you.
This is how zombie apocalypses start. They are going to accidentally create the zombie gene
But wait till you see what happens when they shove it up a cat's ass!
...welcome our newly evolved E. Coli masters.
Yes, that's a point that my argument makes by coincidence. All this micro- vs macro- evolution is worthless speculation anyway because nature doesn't work that way. Nature isn't divided neatly from one species to another and none of our working definitions of a species work in every situation. The very idea of a 'species' goes against observational and theoretical reasoning when it comes to evolution because it implies that there's a cutoff point where one generation is species A and the next is species B, and that isn't the way things work in the real world.
So, is it fair to say the evolved version of e. coli is a new species? Well, it breaks the human made definition of the species e. coli so by human definitions it probably should be; else you can just keep moving the goalposts over and over again and end with something you call e. coli that has little relation to your original definition.
Why are we making E. coli bacteria better faster and stronger? I suppose it could lead to implementing the same method in other species, mammals maybe even (which would have some pros and cons about them too). But is that leap in science something we want to make at the cost of making something stronger that could possibly damage humanity? It seems like the risks far out weigh what we would have to gain.
Evolution by variation and selection.
Is there variation? Yes.
Is there selection? Yes.
What more is there to say? I don't understand why people are so vehemently opposed to this simple and readily verifiable explanation for the way that complex systems (like biological life, social structures, economic systems, galaxies, indeed the whole Universe or Universes, etc.) behave.
So if we can trick shark-Hitler into living about 50 generations all in the course of two years, he would think his Thousand Year Reich had actually come and gone, and he would happily go back to being a painter-shark.
I like where this is going. Kickstarter?
taken a gene from 500-million-year-old bacteria and inserted it into modern E. coli bacteria.
Well that's just rude.
Maybe. Who were you planning to cast in it?
At least give the guy credit for killing Hitler!
Humans continue to experience selective pressure.
Some of the selective pressure is a lot more self-imposed than it has been in the past. Women selectively breed with a specific kind of man, which is why employers have such a hard time finding good technical candidates to hire. Just one example.
This sounds like an interesting opportunity to study convergent evolution:
1. Put ancient bacteria in different environments, and let their lineages diverge;
2. Move the evolved bacteria to similar environments, and check if they converge;
3. Repeat the experiment with differing numbers of generations spent in different environments. How does the convergence depend on the time spent diverging beforehand?
First things that came to mind when reading the headline.
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Ian Malcolm, "Jurassic Park"
Comment Subject by Patton Oswalt
I love science, but take care out there, lets not poison the well.
S
But not at spelling.
These are generally people who can't conceive of really big things, really small things and really long times. They think that light speed means "instantaneous". They think the WTC towers should have fallen over on their sides. They can't understand that lighter than air isn't necessarily weightless. They simply cannot imagine the timespans necessary to understand evolution. In their minds, it's an ape giving birth to George Washington.
How about ... because it can't possibly evolve higher organisms ? This is a question more and more often posed in biological papers (and I don't mean by creationists, loony or otherwise).
How the hell do organisms that have a generation switch of more than 100.000 times longer than simple lifeforms retain fitness ? A generation length is what determines the "learning rate" of an organism. The human "species" leans once every 20 years, with ~2 billion individuals alive. Most bacteria once every 2 minutes, for most species with more individuals than there are stars in the universe. So why in the name of Darwin aren't humans extinct, all killed by diseases with evolotionary knowledge that our organism couldn't possibly hope to match ?
The answer seems simple : because evolution isn't built on mutation and selection at all. Now of course anyone making this argument is immediately branded a heretic, because, well we all know why. Are we any better than with burners though ?
The simple answer is : evolution isn't built on mutation and selection, it is built on transgenic copying and on per-species selection, with mutation relegated to a "once in a thousand years maybe" status. Mutation on one hand is the source of all genes, but it's not involved in spreading them at all, and mutation hardly ever happens and the chance of a phenotype characteristic getting into the human race by mutation is so absurdly remote it's not even funny.
I just realized how "kickstarter?" is becoming or already became a meme (at least here on /.) cool :)
this also suggests me that - although I have not followed ALL the news about kickstarter - there must have been some increasingly mad ideas put over there (either scams or just stupid ones)