This Week in Evolution

Not enough people voted on the Reader’s Choice, so this week’s paper is “Phylogeny and geography predict pathogen community similarity in wild primates and humans” by Jonathan Davies and Amy Pedersen, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Many humans diseases, from flu to AIDS, come from other species. Similarly, diseases from dogs are an increasing threat to lions, while cat diseases kill sea otters. Are there general rules that predict how likely two species are to share diseases?

To find out, the authors analyzed several large data sets on diseases of humans and 117 other species of primate (apes, monkeys, etc.). They hypothesized that species are more likely to share diseases if they live near each other and/or if they are more closely related, that is if they share a more recent common ancestor. This is similar to how we define relatedness in humans: brothers and sisters have more recent common ancestors (parents) than cousins do (grandparents). Fortunately, the family tree for primates is relatively uncontroversial, at least among scientists.

Continue reading "Sharing diseases with relatives and neighbors" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 06:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Olivia Judson's latest column includes a good summary of work in my lab on cooperation between soybean plants and the rhizobium bacteria that (typically) provide them with nitrogen. As she points out, "cheating" is less likely to evolve in symbiont populations if they are transmitted in eggs or seeds, relative to symbionts that are acquired from the environment. In the former, if the host dies before reproducing, the symbiont dies, too. Symbionts without brains (bacteria, say) can't anticipate the effects of their actions; it's just that those whose genetically programmed behavior increases host survival become more common over generations.

Similarly, low symbiont diversity within an individual host may favor symbiont investment in costly activities that benefit the host. If each host has many different symbionts, on the other hand, then helping the host indirectly benefits competing symbionts sharing that host.

Rhizobium bacteria reach new host plants through soil, not via seeds, and they can do so even if the host dies without reproducing. Furthermore, each individual plant has multiple strains of rhizobia, which should undermine cooperation. Why then, do most rhizobia use their limited energy supply to fix nitrogen, giving most of it to the host plant? Why not use that energy for their own reproduction, instead?

Although there are several rhizobium strains per plant, they are typically segregated into individual root nodules. So, Toby Kiers and I reasoned, if plants monitor individual nodules and do something nasty to those that provide less nitrogen, that would act as a form of natural selection against cheating rhizobia. A computer model by Stuart West came to similar conclusions. To test this hypothesis, we forced some nodules to cheat, by surrounding them with an argon-oxygen atmosphere lacking nitrogen gas. Control nodules on the same plant got normal air, which is 80% nitrogen. Would rhizobia freed from the burden of fixing nitrogen redirect resources into their own reproduction? Would the plant impose sanctions on nonfixing nodules? If the answers to these questions are yes and yes, what would be the overall effect of cheating on rhizobium reproductive success?

Continue reading "Welcome, fellow Dr. Tatiana fans!" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 06:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two papers this week describe recently discovered sophisticated adapatations of two different parasites: Gall insects can avoid and alter indirect plant defenses, published in New Phytologist by John Tooker and colleagues, and Parasite-induced fruit mimicry in a tropical canopy ant, published in American Naturalist by Steve Yanoviak and colleagues (if you're in a hurry, skip to the end for amazing photos).

Various plants recruit "bodyguards" when attacked by insects. For example, when caterpillars start munching on corn (maize) plants, the plants (including uninjured leaves) release gaseous chemicals called terpenoids. These terpenoids attract parasitic wasps, which lay their eggs into the caterpillars. This eventually kills the caterpillars, which presumably benefits the plant. But what if the caterpillars could prevent the plant from signaling to the wasps? As far as I know, caterpillars haven’t evolved this trick (yet), but there are apparently some insects – the Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor (say) – that do not trigger signaling when they feed on wheat plants. There are at least two possible explanations…

Continue reading "Tricky parasites winning the evolutionary arms race" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week’s paper is Facultative cheater mutants reveal the genetic complexity of cooperation in social amoebae published in Nature by Lorenzo Santorelli and colleagues at Rice University and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Texas.

The evolution of cooperation is a central problem in the history of life. Darwin explained how sophisticated adaptations -- “the structure of the beetle which dives through the water… the plumed seed which is wafted by the gentlest breeze” -- can evolve in a series of small improvements over generations. But some of the major transitions in evolution are harder to explain, because It seems that they should have been opposed, rather than supported, by natural selection. The origin of multicellular life is a good example. It’s not that hard to imagine independent cells working together in loose groups for mutual benefit – huddling together for defense, say – but why would a cell give up the ability to reproduce, as most of the cells in our bodies have done?

Continue reading "Knowing when not to cheat" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 09:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Summary: A 39-year record of host-parasite interaction, recovered from sediment layers in a pond, is consistent with rapid coevolution.
Link: Host-parasite /`Red Queen/' dynamics archived in pond sediment

As I've discussed previously, archival samples often prove useful for answering questions that weren't being asked when the samples were collected. But what if nobody collected and preserved the samples you need for your research? Maybe you can find a "natural archive" that has what you need.

Continue reading "The ghost of infections past, present, and future" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

There are enough examples of ‘‘cheating’’ in bacteria ... that mindless obedience to such [quorum-sensing] chemical signals cannot be assumed. Mindlessness can be assumed, but not obedience. -- Denison et al. (2003) Ecology 84:838-845

Quorum sensing, an exchange of chemical signals among bacteria, can solve the coordination problem. But this week's paper Cooperation and conflict in quorum-sensing bacterial populations shows that quorum sensing doesn't automatically solve the problem of cheaters. The paper is by Stephen Diggle, Ashleigh Griffin, Genevieve Campbell, and Stuart West and published in Nature.

Continue reading "Communication doesn't automatically prevent cheating" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 11:08 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 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Most of the genome of Wolbachia, a bacterial parasite of fruit flies, has been incorporated into the genome of the fruit-fly itself. Discussion at Not Exactly Rocket Science. Bacteria tend to pass genes around, or (more accurately, perhaps) bacterial genes tend to move themselves around (usually to other bacteria), but this is amazing.

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 07:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week's paper, published in Science (317:679) is "Immune-like phagocyte activity in the social amoeba" by Guokai Chen, Olga Zhuchenko, and Adam Kuspa of the Baylor College of Medicine.

Cells of the social amoeba, Dictyostyleium discoideum forage individually, but eventually group together into a "slug", which crawls through the soil for days before eventually forming a spore-tipped stalk. Previous work with this species has looked at conflicts of interest over which cells have to sacrifice future reproduction (as spores) and become part of the stalk. This week's paper uncovers another example of apparent altruism in Dictyostelium, which may shed light on the evolution of a key part of our immune system.

As a Dictyostelium slug crawls through the soil, some cells are left behind. Are these just random sluggards? Or do they function like human phagocytes, the immune system cells that gobble up bacteria?

Continue reading "Left behind: social amoebae" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 06:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

I have some comments on a recent paper that's only tangentially related to evolution. Actually, it's more relevant to science fair projects, the topic of my last post.

One type of science fair project my fellow judges and I are really sick of is "The effect of X on plants", where X is mouthwash, vinegar, cola, etc. The obvious question, which we always ask, is "how often are plants in the field exposed to high concentrations of mouthwash?" Unfortunately, whoever reviewed this paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, claiming that "Pesticides reduce symbiotic efficiency of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants" apparently failed to ask this question.

Continue reading "Rhizobia, pesticides, and peer review" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 05:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

OK, I've been critiquing other people's work for a while. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to critique something I've written. It's the summary for a grant proposal I'm about to submit. It will be reviewed by ecologists and/or evolutionary biologists, but they're not likely to be specialists in legume-rhizobium symbiosis. So if something isn't clear to an intelligent but nonspecialist audience, you'll let me know, right? If you're not all too busy reading the many interesting evolution articles in today's New York Times, that is. By the way, the great Myxococcus xanthus photo in Carl Zimmer's article is from Supriya Kadam, who did her PhD with Greg Velicer and just finished a year as a postdoc in my lab.

Continue reading "Individual and kin selection in legume-rhizobium mutualism" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Given my location halfway between the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and my childish love of clever acronyms, I sometimes wish I'd named this blog This Week In Natural Selection. But then I suppose I'd have to review a pair of closely related papers each week. I'm going to do that this week, anyway.

This week's twins were both published in PLoS Biology, so both are freely available on-line. Both have new data on bacteria that infect insects. Both help us understand the conditions under which infecting bacteria evolve to be beneficial, rather than harmful. Finally, both disprove, again, the popular idea that any evolutionary change big enough to matter (except antibiotic resistance, which a creationist commenter once claimed always involves "horizontal transfer" of genes among bacteria, even though resistance often evolves in bacteria in a closed container all descended from a single cell) always involves lots of genes and takes millions of years. Evolution is our present and future, not just our past.

Continue reading "Rapid evolution of beneficial infections" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Paul Rainey has a very interesting essay in the April 5 issue of Nature. Much of what we know about "cheating" in bacteria that form floating mats comes from his research, including collaboration with Michael Travisano, recently hired here at University of Minnesota. See my earlier post, "how disturbed are cheaters", for background on this system. Although cheaters that don't invest in the goop that holds floating mats together can result in mats breaking up and sinking, Rainey's new essay suggests that a similar form of cheating may have contributed to the evolution of multicellular life.

Continue reading "Helpful cheaters?" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 04:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Yesterday, my wife asked, "why are there so many theoretical papers in evolutionary biology?" I suggested one reason may be that evolutionary theory is better developed, in the sense of making accurate predictions, than theory in much of biology. This week's paper, comparing results from an evolution experiment to predictions of a mathematical model, is a good example.

The paper is about the evolution of cooperation. This is a hot topic and also my own area of research. Humans enforce cooperation, to varying extents. For example, we often punish cheaters, those who try to benefit from cooperative activities of others without contributing anything themselves. Human cheaters are mostly pretty stupid -- don't even think about plagiarizing this blog for a term paper! -- but what about cheaters with no brains at all?

Continue reading "How disturbed are most cheaters, really?" »

Posted by R. Ford Denison at 10:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)