This Week in Evolution

"This new forage has great insect resistance", effused a former colleague, "we just need to eliminate the toxins that keep sheep from eating it."

Genetically engineered drought-tolerant crops are introduced with great fanfare, only to disappear when they turn out to have low yield under nondrought conditions.

When natural selection falls short of perfection, it may be because "you can't get there (some desirable adaptation) from here (current genotypes)" without passing through a series of intermediate generations that would have lower fitness. Natural selection favors genotypes best-adapted to current conditions, which are not necessarily steps towards any long-term improvement.

But natural selection often seems to miss even "simple" improvements, that might be achieved by changing as little as one DNA base. Such small changes are often enough to increase or decrease expression of key genes, for example. This sort of evolutionary progress may be blocked by tradeoffs, e.g., between seed production under different conditions (e.g., wet vs. dry), or between the competitiveness of individual plants and their collective seed production.

So what are we to make of two recent papers (in Science and Nature, respectively, discussed in Science News) on extending lifespan, one using calorie restriction and the other using the antibiotic, rapamycin?

Calorie restriction has been shown to increase longevity in model species like nematode worms and mice, but this latest study shows clear benefits in monkeys. The obvious question -- at least, it was obvious to me -- is why has past natural selection given monkeys (and fruitflies, and nematodes, and mice...) appetites that make them eat more than is good for them?

At least, that seemed to be the question, until it was shown that food odors can reverse the beneficial effects of calorie restriction, at least in fruitflies and nematodes. In humans, soft drinks with artificial sweeteners turn out to be just as likely to cause "metabolic syndrome" (related to diabetes) as those with sugar. So apparently our lives can be shortened by a perception of abundance, not just by actually eating too much. What is going on here?

In this case, the evolutionary tradeoff seems to be between current and future reproduction. As discussed in last week's post, delaying reproduction usually decreases fitness (representation in the next generation, relative to others) when population is increasing, but delaying reproduction can increase fitness when population is decreasing. Calorie restriction predicts population decline, triggering physiological responses that delay reproduction and thereby increase longevity. So do bitter-tasting foods, traditionally eaten only during famines. Food odors or sweet tastes have the opposite effect, because they predict population increase.

But what about life extension by rapamycin? One known tradeoff is suppression of the immune system, so we might get longer lives only in a hypothetical germ-free environment. But could the protein target of rapamycin (TOR) also be important to reproduction? Is this yet another example of a longevity-vs.-reproduction tradeoff?

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you could choose a longer, healthier life, but only by having fewer kids, would you? What if you could eventually have the same number of kids, but only by having sex more often, and with no possibility of becoming a parent as a teen-ager?

Is this really possible? Based on the paper we published last week, we are pretty sure it is, although we don't yet know how much of an increase in lifespan is achievable, nor how much it will "cost" in reduced fertility.

A key assumption is that there are tradeoffs between longevity and reproduction, especially early reproduction. There is plenty of evidence for this antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis: some gene variants that increase longevity nonetheless stay rare, because individuals with those variants have fewer kids. There are many possible reasons for this tradeoff. Calories used for reproduction aren't available for maintaining our bodies. Blood pressure and insulin levels optimal for reproduction are unlikely to be exactly optimal for longevity. Other risks associated with reproduction include sexually transmitted diseases and direct risks of childbirth. When there is a conflict between reproduction and longevity, natural selection will often favor reproduction.

There are, however, two ways we may be able to choose differently, increasing longevity at the expense of (potential, but maybe not actual) reproduction. First, once germ-line gene therapy is perfected and available (initially, perhaps, only in one or two "outlaw states"), maybe we could reverse some of the effects of past natural selection. We might be able to produce genetically engineered kids who would reach puberty later and with low enough intrinsic fertility that occasional unprotected sex would rarely lead to pregnancy, but who would still be healthy at age 100.

Second, what about people already born? Is there some biological "switch" we can throw, that tilts the longevity-vs.-reproduction tradeoff more towards longevity? Or has past natural selection welded the switch in the "reproduce now" position?

We think the switch is free to move, depending on environmental cues that affected our ancestors' survival and reproduction. Our paper shows that the switch position that maximizes Darwinian fitness depends on whether the overall population is increasing or decreasing. If population is decreasing, then individuals that live longer and reproduce later can contribute a larger fraction to their species' (shrunken) gene pool than those that reproduce earlier, on average, even if a few of them die before they get a chance to reproduce, and even if their lifetime reproduction is less than they might have achieved earlier.

Therefore, even though gene variants that always sacrifice early reproduction to increase longevity may not have persisted in the gene pool, variants that delay reproduction (thereby increasing longevity) only when populations were decreasing are likely to be with us, in each of our DNA molecules, today.

If this is true, all we need to do to increase our longevity is to give our bodies (false) cues that, over our evolutionary history, usually predicted population declines. To the extent that population declines were caused by food shortage, eating less may work, as it does in most species tested. Eating "famine foods" (leaves rather than meat, maybe) may also trigger physiological responses that reduce fertility but extend lifespan. On the other hand, if population declines were usually caused by cold winters, is there some reasonably comfortable way to trigger similar responses?

Delaying reproduction can only increase fitness if it increases the chances of surviving the famine or cold winter and reproducing later. So stresses that often predicted the death of the stressed individual (those associated with violent conflict, perhaps) won't necessarily delay reproduction or increase longevity. But there are lots of examples of mild stress increasing longevity. These stresses presumably trigger health-and-longevity-promoting mechanisms, but we may be the first to explain why such beneficial mechanisms aren't turned on all the time: they tend to reduce fertility.

Now, here's a question for you: would increasing human longevity be a good thing? I've seen this issue discussed in various places, but rather superficially. Assume that this option was made available to everyone, given that the cost could be quite low: inexpensive drugs or lifestyle changes that might even save money. Death rates would go down, in the short run, but so would birth rates, especially in countries where birth control is now rare. Death from old age is a fairly small component of overall population trends in these countries (relative to birth rate and infant mortality), so their rate of population increase might actually slow. But, if people expected to live longer, would they have more children (despite lower intrinsic fertility) or fewer, and at what age? Assuming some increase in population, we might need to grow more food -- a significant challenge -- but how would the overall impact of two healthy 90-year-olds who are still working (perhaps as doctors or nurses) and driving compare to that of one 90-year old who doesn't drive but needs expensive medical care? If professors keep working into their 90's, will that slow the spread of good new ideas, or only of stupid ideas that younger faculty may not know were debunked long ago? Would a longer-lived population produce too many bloggers?

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 7:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Recently, I wrote about how grooming each other can reduce levels of stress hormones, for example, in baboons and birds. But I asked, “why should natural selection allow excessive levels of this stress hormone?�
This week’s paper shows one way that natural selection can lead to harmful levels of stress hormones. The question, of course, is “harmful to whom?�

Writing in American Naturalist, Oliver Love and Tony Williams report that stressed mother birds pass stress hormones to their offspring. (Passing your stress on to others seems to be popular in humans also.) These hormones increase the risk of chicks dying, especially male chicks. But they may also increase the mother’s lifetime reproductive success.

Continue reading "Who suffers from stress?" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 11:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

About 1500 scientists attended Evolution 2008 here last week. The four-day meeting was filled with 15-minute talks (usually ten at once, in different rooms), plus two evening poster sessions (like a science fair, for grownups, with discussions rather than judging), scenically located on a pedestrian bridge over the Mississippi. Reports that “scientists are abandoning evolution�? appear to be exaggerated.

Here are summaries of some of the talks I enjoyed.

Continue reading "Evolution 2008: sexy plants, battling bacteria, durable cooperation" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 8:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Semelparous plants and animals are those that reproduce only once, whether after a few months of growth (annual plants, like wheat) or after years (“century plant� or most salmon). Iteroparous species iterate. That is, they reproduce repeatedly. For example, perennial grasses may produce seeds every year for a decade or more.

One reason this difference matters is that perennial crops may have some environmental benefits, relative to annual crops. Plowing, traditionally more common with annual than perennial crops, can greatly increase soil erosion, especially on steep slopes. So there is increasing interest in developing perennial grain crops as an alternative to wheat.

However, perennial plants have lower seed yield than their annual relatives, so we would need to devote more land to agriculture to get the same amount of grain. One reason for the yield difference is that an annual plant can transfer most of the carbon (energy) and nitrogen (needed for protein) from its leaves, stem, and roots into its seeds. It’s going to die anyway, so the next generation gets its accumulated wealth. A perennial plant needs to hold back some carbon and nitrogen for winter survival and spring regrowth. The more resources it puts into this year’s seed production, the less it can carry forward to support reproduction next year.

This week’s paper shows that iteroparous plants face additional costs when they reproduce, namely, ecological costs. “Herbivore-mediated ecological costs of reproduction shape the life history of an iteroparous plant� was written by Tom Miller and colleagues at the University of Nebraska (where I’ll be speaking on Darwinian Agriculture in April) and published in American Naturalist.

Continue reading "Natural enemies complicate reproductive tradeoffs" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two papers on cooperation this week. If you were trying to help someone, but end up causing problems for them, were you being cooperative? I have no idea, so I like to study cooperation in microbes. Microbes don't have brains, so "intent" isn't a factor. And the only definition of "benefit" that makes sense is an increase in Darwinian fitness or reproductive success, which is often easy to measure in microbes; just count them.
I like these definitions:

Cooperation: a behaviour which provides a benefit to another individual (recipient), and which is selected for because of its beneficial effect on the recipient. [Exhaling CO2 isn't cooperation; it evolved as a side-effect of breathing oxygen, not to benefit plants.]
Cheaters: individuals who do not cooperate (or cooperate less than their fair share), but are potentially able to gain the benefit of others cooperating. ["Equal share" might be less ambiguous.]

Continue reading "Cooperation and cheating in microbes: quorum sensing and persisters" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 5:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Why do women, in contrast to our closest relatives, stop giving birth while they are still relatively young and healthy? This week's paper. "Testing Evolutionary Theories of Menopause", by Daryl Shanley and coauthors, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, uses data from people living in The Gambia to test two different hypotheses.

Continue reading "Menopause trade-offs" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 7:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

How sophisticated behavior would you expect from an animal with a brain as small as a wasp's? Few, if any, female wasps have read David Lack's classic paper on the optimum number of eggs to lay, or even John Dennehy's clear summary of it. This week's paper asks whether they, nonetheless, adjust egg numbers optimally in response to competition from other wasps and resource availability.

"Encountering competitors reduces clutch size and increases offspring size in a parasitoid with female–female fighting" was written by Marlene Goubault, Alexandra Mack, and Ian Hardy, of the University of Nottingham, and published in Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Continue reading "Almost a no-brainer" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 10:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I have written about evolutionary trade-offs before, starting with early posts about trade-offs between seed size and seed number in plants, and trade-offs between the ability of insects to escape predators by flying away, versus the ability to hide from them by playing dead. I have also given some examples of the increasing use of sophisticated experimental (often molecular) methods in evolutionary biology. This week's paper combines both themes.

The paper is "Restriction of an extinct retrovirus by the human TRIM5-alpha antiviral protein" by Shari Kaiser, Harmit Malik, and Michael Emerman, published in Science (vol.316 p.1756).

Retroviruses are made of RNA, but make DNA copies of themselves that can insert into the DNA of host cells they infect. HIV, the cause of AIDS, is a well-known example, but there are many others. If DNA copies of the retrovirus are inserted into cells giving rise to sperm or eggs, they can be passed to the next generation, as endogenous retroviruses. If the DNA inserts somewhere where it turns an important gene on or off, it may kill the host. Or, once in a while, this change may turn out to be beneficial. The few beneficial changes are the ones that survive and spread, just as the few mutations that are beneficial are the ones that persist.

VWXYNot has an interesting discussion of how a creationist web site misused one of her papers as evidence of "intelligent design." She shows how shared endoviruses can be used to infer shared ancestry, providing yet more evidence that we share a recent ancestor with apes, less-recent ancestors with monkeys, etc. But that's not what this week's paper is about....

Continue reading "Trade-offs in defense against retroviruses" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Next week, I'm speaking at a one-day symposium on "Darwinian Agriculture: the evolutionary ecology of agricultural symbiosis", in Wageningen, The Netherlands. So, instead of reviewing a recent paper, this week I'm going to discuss some of the not-quite-so-recent papers on which my talk will be based. The following week, I plan to summarize some of the talks I hear at the meeting.

I may do the same thing in August, when my grad students and I speak at the much larger Ecological Society of America meetings in San Jose, California. Feel free to comment if you feel cheated of your weekly paper review, and I might reconsider. The Evolution meetings are in Christchurch, New Zealand, this year, but my grant won't stretch that far.

"Darwinian Agriculture: when can humans find solutions beyond the reach of natural selection?" was the title of a paper that Toby Kiers, Stuart West, and I published in 2003. Our answers to the title question suggested how increased understanding of past and ongoing evolution could improve: 1) breeding of crops and livestock, and 2) design of agricultural ecosystems.

Continue reading "Darwinian agriculture I" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 6:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Answer: they're both semelparous (reproduce once, then die), so evolutionary trade-offs between number and size of offspring are expected to be similar.

This week's paper is "Evolutionary aspects of the trade-off between seed size and number in crops" (Field Crops Research 100:125-138) by Victor Sadras. You can read the abstract on the web for free. For the full version, you can pay $30 to download, visit your nearest agricultural research library (in the U.S., often at a state university), or email the author at: sadras.victor@saugov.sa.gov.au. My discussion is mostly based on a shorter version presented at the Australian Agronomy Conference.

Demand for grain is increasing, to feed growing human and livestock populations and more recently for ethanol production. Unless those trends are reversed, we will either need to expand the land area used for agriculture or increase grain yields per unit area. Grain yield is the product of plants per area, seeds per plant, and weight per seed. Unfortunately, increasing any one of these (by increasing seeding rate, or through plant breeding) tends to decrease the others.

This paper looks at how natural selection (in the wild ancestors of crop plants and in fish) and plant breeding (especially in maize and sunflower) shape trade-offs between seed number per plant and seed size. The similar patterns in plants and fish show that, as predicted by the relevant aspects of evolutionary theory, we are dealing with fundamental constraints that we are unlikely to change.

Continue reading "Evolutionary trade-offs: how are soybeans like salmon?" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)