Researchers Trace Evolution To Relatively Simple Genetic Changes

Knight-Dragon

Unhidden Dragon
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Messages
19,961
Location
Singapore
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050528141615.htm

In a stunning example of evolution at work, scientists have now found that changes in a single gene can produce major changes in the skeletal armor of fish living in the wild.

The surprising results, announced in the March 25, 2005, issue of journal Science, bring new data to long-standing debates about how evolution occurs in natural habitats.

"Our motivation is to try to understand how new animal types evolve in nature," said molecular geneticist David M. Kingsley, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the Stanford University School of Medicine. "People have been interested in whether a few genes are involved, or whether changes in many different genes are required to produce major changes in wild populations."

The answer, based on new research, is that evolution can occur quickly, with just a few genes changing slightly, allowing newcomers to adapt and populate new and different environments.

In collaboration with zoologist Dolph Schluter, at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and Rick Myers and colleagues at Stanford, Kingsley and graduate student Pamela F. Colosimo focused on a well-studied little fish called the stickleback. The fish -- with three bony spines poking up from their backs -- live both in the seas and in coastal fresh water habitats all around the northern hemisphere.

Sticklebacks are enormously varied, so much so that in the 19th century naturalists had counted about 50 different species. But since then, biologists have realized most populations are recent descendants of marine sticklebacks. Marine fish colonized new freshwater lakes and streams when the last ice age ended 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Then they evolved along separate paths, each adapting to the unique environments created by large scale climate change.

"There are really dramatic morphological and physiological adaptations" to the new environments, Kingsley said.

For example, "sticklebacks vary in size and color, reproductive behavior, in skeletal morphology, in jaws and teeth, in the ability to tolerate salt and different temperatures at different latitudes," he said.

Kingsley, Schluter and their co-workers picked one trait -- the fish's armor plating -- on which to focus intense research, using the armor as a marker to see how evolution occurred. Sticklebacks that still live in the oceans are virtually covered, from head to tail, with bony plates that offer protection. In contrast, some freshwater sticklebacks have evolved to have almost no body armor.

"It's rather like a military decision, to be either heavily armored and slow, or to be lightly armored and fast," Kingsley said. "Now, in countless lakes and streams around the world these low-armored types have evolved over and over again. It's one of the oldest and most characteristic differences between stickleback forms. It's a dramatic change: a row of 35 armor plates turning into a small handful of plates - or even no plates at all."

Using genetic crosses between armored and unarmored fish from wild populations, the research team found that one gene is what makes the difference.

"Now, for the first time, we've been able to identify the actual gene that is controlling this trait," the armor-plating on the stickleback, Kingsley said

The gene they identified is called Eda, originally named after a human genetic disorder associated with the ectodysplasin pathway, an important part of the embryonic development process. The human disorder, one of the earliest ones studied, is called ectodermal dysplasia.

"It's a famous old syndrome," Kingsley said. "Charles Darwin talked about it. It's a simple Mendelian trait that controls formation of hair, teeth and sweat glands. Darwin talked about 'the toothless men of Sind,' a pedigree (in India) that was striking because many of the men were missing their hair, had very few teeth, and couldn't sweat in hot weather. It's a very unusual constellation of symptoms, and is passed as a unit through families."

Research had already shown that the Eda gene makes a protein, a signaling molecule called ectodermal dysplasin. This molecule is expressed in ectodermal tissue during development and instructs certain cells to form teeth, hair and sweat glands. It also seems to control the shape of - bones in the forehead and nose.

Now, Kingsley said, "it turns out that armor plate patterns in the fish are controlled by the same gene that creates this clinical disease in humans. And this finding is related to the old argument whether Nature can use the same genes and create other traits in other animals."

Ordinarily, "you wouldn't look at that gene and say it's an obvious candidate for dramatically changing skeletal structures in wild animals that end up completely viable and healthy,' he said. "Eda gene mutations cause a disease in humans, but not in the fish. So this is the first time mutations have been found in this gene that are not associated with a clinical syndrome. Instead, they cause evolution of a new phenotype in natural populations."

The research with the wild fish also shows that the same gene is used whenever the low armor trait evolves. "We used sequencing studies to compare the molecular basis of this trait across the northern hemisphere," said Kingsley. "It doesn't matter where we look, on the Pacific coast, the East coast, in Iceland, everywhere. When these fish evolve this low-armored state they are using the same genetic mechanism. It's happening over and over again. It makes them more fit in all these different locations."

Because this trait evolves so rapidly after ocean fish colonize new environments, he added, "we wondered whether the genetic variant (the mutant gene) that controls this trait might still exist in the ocean fish. So we collected large numbers of ocean fish with complete armor, and we found a very low level of this genetic variant in the marine population."

So, he said, "the marine fish actually carry the genes for this alternative state, but at such a low level it is never seen;" all the ocean fish remain well-armored. "But they do have this silent gene that allows this alternative form to emerge if the fish colonize a new freshwater location."

Also, comparing what happens to the ectodysplasin signaling molecule when its gene is mutated in humans, and in fish, shows a major difference. The human protein suffers "a huge amount of molecular lesions, including deletions, mutations, many types of lesions that would inactivate the protein," Kingsley said.

But in contrast, "in the fish we don't see any mutations that would clearly destroy the protein." There are some very minor changes in many populations, but these changes do not affect key parts of the molecule. In addition, one population in Japan used the same gene to evolve low armor, but has no changes at all in the protein coding region. Instead, Kingsley said, "the mutations that we have found are, we think, in the (gene's) control regions, which turns the gene on and off on cue." So it seems that evolution of the fish is based on how the Eda gene is used; how, when and where it is activated during embryonic growth.

Also, to be sure they're working with the correct gene, the research team used genetic engineering techniques to insert the armor-controlling gene into fish "that are normally missing their armor plates. And that puts the plates back on the sides of the fish," Kingsley said.

"So, this is one of the first cases in vertebrates where it's been possible to track down the genetic mechanism that controls a dramatic change in skeletal pattern, a change that occurs naturally in the wild," he noted.

"And it turns out that the mechanisms are surprisingly simple. Instead of killing the protein (with mutations), you merely adjust the way it is normally regulated. That allows you to make a major change in a particular body region -- and produces a new type of body armor without otherwise harming the fish."
 
Very interesting once again. :)
 
Yeah, well, God made it this way as a test of our faith. Yeah, that's it :mischief:

Another interesting article XIII
 
Hey, XIII, maybe you can sticky this link, (or a list of such links) to the top of the page for easy reference every time those silly creationist/evolution debates pops up again (which seems to be at a rate of once a week)?
 
no.gif


You can always bookmark it yourself. :p

As for those threads, you can always ignore them...
 
creationist view: It's easy to understand how a gene mutation can result in a minor change in a species, but how does this explain one species becoming another? Are there any examples of that?
 
MeteorPunch said:
creationist view: It's easy to understand how a gene mutation can result in a minor change in a species, but how does this explain one species becoming another? Are there any examples of that?

add a few changes, or a single change that maks them stop mating with the unchanged group - voila! a new species!


happenes all the time; there's some tube worm where tiny tiny changes added up through three years of lab breeding up to the point where the worms wouldn't mate anymore with wild ones.

check www.talkorigins.org (IIRC)
 
The Last Conformist said:
Also, I don't see how complete loss of body armour is a "minor" change.

Considering how little DNA difference there is compared to how things look, you'd be suprised at how minor a change that is. (My guess would be at the most a 1% overall DNA change, much more likely a tenth of that) Humans are 11% yeast and 50% house fly after all. :p Largely changed appearances don't necessarily translate largely changed DNA codes.
 
Elrohir said:
Considering how little DNA difference there is compared to how things look, you'd be suprised at how minor a change that is. (My guess would be at the most a 1% overall DNA change, much more likely a tenth of that) Humans are 11% yeast and 50% house fly after all. :p Largely changed appearances don't necessarily translate largely changed DNA codes.

Actually, you make the point for evolution very well: a tiny change in DNA (not even 1% here) and already a massive change in phenotype.....

Now how much genetic change do we need for speciation?
If reproductory organs are concerned - hardly any, as you show in your post.

thank you!
 
For dogs, lets say one breed has a thick fur coat. One minor change in dna, and now the coat is less thick.

For this fish, it breeds with a lesser scaled fish, and now it has less scales.

How does a change in appearance have anything to do with one species becoming another?
 
If, over time, a genetic mutation leads to one breed being incapable of breeding with another breed, they are a different species. Darwin saw evidence for this on the galapagos islands, where the species were cosmetically similar, but geographically isolated (i.e. they were on separate islands), so that over time, mutations had lead to the species being incapable of breeding.

A change in apperance doesn't have anything to do with another species, but a change in the biology of reproduction does. You accept that a change in appearance has occured, right? So why can't a change in reproduction occur?
 
MeteorPunch said:
For dogs, lets say one breed has a thick fur coat. One minor change in dna, and now the coat is less thick.

For this fish, it breeds with a lesser scaled fish, and now it has less scales.

How does a change in appearance have anything to do with one species becoming another?

simple:

some changes in appearance are harmless. But massive changes, as is the case here, will have other results as well: in sexual attractiveness, in fittnes [here, less armour means more nimble, means better chances at survival in waters with cover (need to get to cover fast, and can as opposed to doesn't need much cover, but can't make it if needed)], often resulting in different chances of survival in different environment and in different behaviour.

So in this case, the less armoured fish will behave differently, live in slightly different habitats - and be very much less likely to amte with armoured ones.

So trhe next small change in their genome will only affect their population while a change in the other pop will not drift over. And on and on....



Let's amke an example about humans: suppose, every once in a while someone is born with a hideous nose. let this be genetic, and considered extremely ugly by others.
People who have such a nose will tend to be outsiders, and only accepted by others who suffer from the same nose. So they will have a much higher likelyness to find a mate who has the same nose abnormity. And thus you will in the long run get a group that DOES NOT MATE WITH OTHER HUMANS BUT ONLY AMONG THEMSELVES and has a genetic difference - a new species, strictly speaking!


or take Orcinus orca - the open ocean groups do not talk to or mate with the coastal groups. It is only a matter of tradition and food preference, whcih may even be learnt, not genetic. Still, to each group a member of the other group is as a chimp is to us: you note them but never talk to them and defiantely do not have children with them.
Thus, any mutation spreading around ono of the pops will not make it into the other.

SPECIATION!
 
@Carlos:
Is any distinction made between two species who are biologically capable of mating but who "chose" not to for other reasons, and two species who are completely biologically incapable of mating?
 
Mise said:
If, over time, a genetic mutation leads to one breed being incapable of breeding with another breed, they are a different species. Darwin saw evidence for this on the galapagos islands, where the species were cosmetically similar, but geographically isolated (i.e. they were on separate islands), so that over time, mutations had lead to the species being incapable of breeding.
hasn't a horse and a zebra (or something like that) bred together recently? Or is this something else?

Mise said:
A change in apperance doesn't have anything to do with another species, but a change in the biology of reproduction does. You accept that a change in appearance has occured, right? So why can't a change in reproduction occur?
Ok, if two people with brown hair have a kid, it will most likely have brown hair, but not always. Either way this is something alterable on humans, much like the plating on the fish. So yes, I do think things are changeable.

But I don't see how a land mammal (alligator-like) would start to live in the water, then it's legs are turned into fins through hundered (millions) of small variances. This would require a genetic mutation which is too convenient. Most/all mutations I've seen are contradictory to function.
 
MeteorPunch said:
hasn't a horse and a zebra (or something like that) bred together recently? Or is this something else?
I don't know about a horse and a zebra, but I'm willing to bet that the offspring is infertile. (Just like a horse and a donkey.)

But I don't see how a land mammal (alligator-like) would start to live in the water, then it's legs are turned into fins through hundered (millions) of small variances. This would require a genetic mutation which is too convenient. Most/all mutations I've seen are contradictory to function.
Well that's the wrong way around -- fishes developed first and then amphibious and land animals followed later. I don't know the details of this process though.

One thing though, I'm not sure what you mean by "contradictory to function", but mutations are indeed completely random; in the majority of cases they are entirely neutral (e.g. brown hair vs blonde hair). The mutations are not done consciously -- biology doesn't think "hmm, I'll make a mutation that would help me breathe on land". Nor does it think, "hmm, this mutation is good, I will keep it". It's completely determined by "survival of the fittest" -- if an animal has a mutation that will make it easier to reproduce, it will reproduce more and the mutation will spread throughout the population through reproduction. So yes, most mutations do almost nothing for the species. If a mutation is "deterimental", selective pressure will wipe those sub-species who contain that mutation out (simply because they are less capable of reproducing), and if a mutation is "beneficial", the mutation will propagate through the population through reproduction. (Note that what is "detrimental" and what is "beneficial" is completely to do with the animal's ability to go forth and multiply; a mutation is "good" if it enables that sub-species to multiply better, which includes surviving long enough to multiply.)
 
Mise said:
Well that's the wrong way around -- fishes developed first and then amphibious and land animals followed later. I don't know the details of this process though.
for whales (and other sea mammals) it is believed that they lived on land, then went to the water. I guess an alligator is a reptile though. :blush:

I'm assuming there are two categories of change - one which is like hair color, a simple combination of genetics. The other being a abnormal mutation. This is the one I was saying it would take for a mammal to change it's arms to fins. These are usually derogatory changes, like being born with an extra finger, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom