|
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 Mixing MammalsPutting bat DNA into mice sheds light on how limbs evolved. By Anna Davison
By outfitting mice with a chunk of DNA that directs wing development in bats, scientists have created rodents with abnormally long forelimbs, mimicking one of the steps in the evolution of the bat wing. Their work gives weight to the idea that variations in how genes are controlled, and not just mutations in the coding regions of genes, are a driving force in evolution. The slightly longer forelimbs of the transgenic mice "make them more batlike," says Nipam Patel, a professor of molecular and cell biology and integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the work. "It seems like a subtle difference, but evolution works by these subtle differences." The researchers focused on a gene, Prx1, that plays a part in the elongation of limb bones in mammals. The gene's expression is regulated by another sequence of DNA, called a Prx1 enhancer. To investigate how the enhancer shapes limb development, Richard Behringer, a professor of molecular genetics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and his colleagues around the country put the bat version of the Prx1 enhancer into mice so that it controlled the mouse Prx1 gene. These transgenic animals developed forelimbs that were on average 6 percent longer than normal by the time they were born. It was a significant difference, although "the mice look like mice," Behringer says. "They're not going to fly out of the cage." The researchers report their work in the latest issue of Genes and Development. To have any chance of flying, mice would have to develop very different forelimbs, like those of bats, which are longer and have membranes stretched between the bones. Behringer says that he'd like to try replacing the limb enhancers in mice with those from other animals, such as whales or wallabies. Charles Darwin contemplated the evolution of different kinds of limbs in On the Origin of Species. Starting with a basic limb pattern, "successive slight modifications," he wrote, eventually produce the various mammal limbs we see today: human hands, bat wings, whale fins. "We think what we've done is made one of those slight modifications," Behringer says. "Maybe during evolution you'd have a lot of those and the limb would get a lot longer, and maybe some of the tissue would be retained between digits, ultimately leading to the structures that would allow a bat to fly." "It's a very nice demonstration of something that people have been suspecting now for some time: that regulatory sequences rather than changes in protein sequences sort of drive evolution," says Susan Mackem, who heads the Developmental Biology Unit at the National Cancer Institute's Center for Cancer Research. Mackem was not involved in Behringer's research. Behringer's team also found something unexpected. When the researchers created mutant mice that lacked the mouse Prx1 enhancer, the animals developed forelegs of a normal length. That suggests that more than one enhancer controls the expression of the Prx-1 gene in mice, ensuring what Behringer calls a "regulatory redundancy." "As long as there is one copy to do the work, the other copy can be creative," says Ann Burke, an associate professor of biology at Wesleyan University. |








Comments
I still contend if evolution was a viable theory, account, we would have primates who have been here on earth for a million or more years, evolving into a Human-like creature, I mean physical evidence. And there hasn't been any concrete recorded evidence.
Respectfully,
Bob Cooper MD
Two other possibilities exist that were not dealt with in the article:
1. No directed random-variation pathway exists between the species pair
2. Multiple directed random-variation pathways exist between the pair
If either of these propositions is true, the study results could be meaningless.
The mere existence of a human-created hybrid combination of a pair of species does not by necessity mean that the hybrid was an evolutionary transitional form, just as human-created glow-in-the-dark pigs and tobacco plants should not suggest that these luminous species were evolutionary forms, either transitional or terminal.
You are basically just erecting a straw man, and then proceed to 'prove' that they are wrong.
However, the following statements from the article go much further than your summary:
"Their work gives weight to the idea that variations in how genes are controlled, and not just mutations in the coding regions of genes, are a driving force in evolution."
"We think what we've done is made one of those slight modifications," Behringer says. "Maybe during evolution you'd have a lot of those and the limb would get a lot longer, and maybe some of the tissue would be retained between digits, ultimately leading to the structures that would allow a bat to fly."
"It's a very nice demonstration of something that people have been suspecting now for some time: that regulatory sequences rather than changes in protein sequences sort of drive evolution,"
You stated that my argument was a straw man. Yet, you did not provide details as to where you feel I mischaracterized the views of the study authors.
At the risk of being accused of constructing a straw man about why you consider my argument to be a straw man, I will attempt to guess what your objection is. The only concept that I can find in my argument that is based on an assumption about the position of the authors is that they believe the hybrid animal to be an evolutionary transitional form between the particular mouse and bat species (though I think the second quoted paragraph above does imply it.) If this assumption is not the case, then the authors must necessarily either believe one of the other two points I originally enumerated, since the three propositions (i.e., 0, 1, or multiple directed random pathways) completely describe the range of possibilities.
If my assumption was incorrect, and the authors do not necessarily believe they have created an evolutionary transitional form (because either 0 or multiple directed random pathways exist linking the two species), then the conclusions about evolution that I quoted above from the article become even more baseless than with my original assumption of a direct lineage.
For example, comparing a cat to an elephant does not suggest an evolutionary process by which a small animal ear can evolve to a large one since no one claims that the elephant is a direct descendant of the cat. Any attempt to speculate about evolutionary processes on the basis of such a comparison would not have merit, and creating a larger-eared cat through insertion of selected elephant genes would not alter the verdict.
As the molecular biology tools improve, one will be able to conduct such forced&accelerated evolution experiments on mammals in the lab. Say you work on a mouse colony, and in each generation you forcefully induce a small, but defined genetic change. After 20 mouse generations you will have arrived to a completely new mouse sub-species. And if you keep doing this long enough, you'll get a completely new species. But the main theoretical point would be that you could save the lines of each intermediate form, and line them up for a 'family picture'. Then in this picture snapshot you could document how you gradually went from species A to species B. However, we don't have the technical expertise to do such experiments yet (not on mammals anyway. perhaps only in bacteria).
Unfortunately, the experiment you suggest falls into the same trap that I am complaining about in the original article. All you are suggesting is to add 20 such incremental changes instead of 1 change, thus creating a discrete progression from one species to a new one. However, unless your species progression replicates a supposed evolutionary lineage, your experiment ironically is only demonstrative of intelligent design rather than evolution! This conclusion is true not just because the genetic changes are human-forced (which would indeed be necessary in an experiment), but because the changes themselves may not reflect evolutionary changes at all. To illustrate the point hyperbolically, we could modify the genetic experiment that produced glowing pigs to include subsequent generations modified to metabolize hydrocarbons, generate pesticides, and any other humorous feature we could concoct, but this artificial lineage could not be used to extrapolate information regarding evolutionary processes, even though the incremental genetic changes are small.
Experiments that are not modeled after the actual question supposedly being answered yield only squishy anecdotes, and never amount to hard science.
The conclusion from the mixing experiments is: if we can shape&morph an organism, then the evolutionary forces can do the same thing. Exactly recreating an evolutionary path is not a requirement. In fact, the exact reproduction of an evolutionary path never happens in nature either (see whales/dolphins vs. fishes).
Doing a controlled lab experiment obviously requires 'the designer' to design and carry out the experiment. But it does not follow from this that natural processes need a designer as well. Experiments are merely a way for us to learn about the world.
PS - if there was some kind of evolutionary advantage to it, green-fluorescent pigs and cats with elephant ears could have evolved.
I was sitting in an airport one day (before homeland security decided no one should do that, ever) and I was thinking about genes and books. They are both just information bound up in an unreadable format unless you know how to open and decode them.
DNA is like a book that gets opened and read repeatedly. If you had a favorite section in a text, or the bible, any book that you returned to on a regular basis it would get worn. This wear and tear does not inhibit you reading the information, it assists you in finding the correct pages. If this were true for DNA, it would mean the more a particular gene was accessed the easier it would be to access, and the more that attached itself to the open ends of the gene the harder it would be for it to close and the more cascade interactions could occur. It creates a beneficial cycle, from the genes perspective, making it easier to access, and more likely to be available when needed.
When you step away from the DNA as book metaphor, but apply the error reliance principle, you get an open sequence for a protein that might get copied by accident and have an additional copy of itself inserted someplace else in the chromosome or even more broadly in the genome. The longer it is open the more mistakes can happen in its favor, the more likely beneficial mutations can occur.
Evolution of a specific trait could happen much faster in this context.
Just some airport thoughts. Made sense at the time.